juilletmercredi

I think the "academic incest" effect is overstated, personally. It's nice to go elsewhere for your PhD but if the best place for you intellectually is where you already are, and the research is a great fit, there's nothing wrong staying where you are even if it's not the very best place in your field. Obviously you don't want to stay at a mediocre to poor institution, but a good or great place can develop you just as well. Being a grad student is different from being an undergrad. I agree that broadening your interests is a great idea and working with other people is better for your personal network and your personal development. It's one of the reasons I don't plan to apply for a postdoc at my graduate institution, even though they have a postdoc almost perfectly aligned with my research interests. When you have people from two or three different institutions who are willing to vouch for how great you are - and who spread that information within their networks - then that is the best. But it's not a *bad* thing to stay put, it's just not *as good* as going somewhere else. Of course, this is also field-dependent.

It sounds like you just aren't sure what you want to do. The solution to that is not to go to get more schooling; you will just be wasting time and money until you figure out what you want to do. What if you get a degree in nursing and then realize that you hate it and what you really want to do is something else? Then you've wasted all that time and money doing something you won't use. I know it can be frustrating searching for jobs when you have been unsuccessful, but the reality of this economy is that many people spend over a year looking for full-time employment. You have to keep trying though. Stop the CC program because you don't know what to do, and at this point you are directing resources you need into something you don't. South Korea is actually pretty safe (it's a modern country with a modern army nd despite the recent shows of power, North Korea is actually pretty unlikely to start beef), and she also suggested Japan, which is extremely safe. You might look into the JET programme or EPIK, or a Fulbright or CIEE programs, all of which pay for English teaching abroad and which can send you to many countries other than South Korea, if you want. The only time I would suggest a second bachelor's is if you were getting it in a field in which a bachelor's in X is required to enter that field. A bachelor's in nursing, accounting, or engineering would fill that. I wouldn't get a second bachelor's in computer science, web development, or marketing or business; those are all things that you can either take a few classes in and/or teaching yourself through volunteering, internships or on the job training. Speaking of which, what else are you doing in your spare time while looking? I've read a couple of job-hunting guides, including askamanager.com, and they advise that long gaps in employment hurt you a lot. The solution is to find ways to fill that time, including volunteering and internships. Are there orgs nearby that you can volunteer your time to while learning some valuable skills?

It does matter in psychology. Psychology departments are kind of insular, and they like to hire people who got PhDs in psychology. People who have gotten degrees in interdisciplinary fields that include psychology sometimes have difficulty getting positions in psychology departments. However, neuroscience is a slightly different deal since so much of neuroscience is from psychology. I just checked the PhDs of the neuroscientists in my department (which has a strong neuro subfield) and actually slightly more than half earned their PhDs in neurobiology, neurobehavior or neuroscience. (The other ~40% got their PhDs from psychology programs with concentrations in biological psychology or neuroscience.) So if you get a PhD in neuroscience and do pretty heavily psychological research, then you can probably get a job in a psychology department - as long as that psychology department has a pretty heavy neuroscience focus or philosophy. Some departments have a more social/developmental/applied angle to them, and you probably won't get as much interest there (but then you wouldn't want to be there anyway!)

I have an unnatural hatred for EndNote. Most people at my uni use it, but it irritates me. I love Zotero because of the ease of adding new citations and the ease of putting citations into Word.

I disagree that the name shouldn't matter. Johns Hopkins is a great place for public health (this is my field) and there's a reason for that. The thing is, UNC, Michigan, and George Washington are ALL ALSO very very very good places for public health. UNC is #2, Michigan is #4 and George Washington is #16. These differences are not large enough to pay significantly more money at Johns Hopkins! Add that to the greater opportunities at the other schools and you should definitely forget about JHU. And yes, in public health doing something during grad school is more important than name brand - an internship during your MPH program will help lead to a job more quickly than the name.

I think the question before you ask is more money worth it is if you can afford the higher price. Affordability comes first. None of that is going to pay your bills. Let's say that Harvard is going to give you a 75% tuition grant and tuition there is $40,000 a year; that leaves tuition as $10,000 per year. Let's also say that living expenses for 12 months at Harvard will necessitate a $25,000 loan per year. That's $20,000 in loans + $50,000 in living expenses for two years = $70,000 in debt. That is just at the limit of what I would be willing to borrow for a masters, and that's because I have very little undergrad debt. If you have undergrad debt, Harvard may put you over the limit of affordability wrt paying off student loans in addition to living. Groningen is a third of the cost of Harvard, so let's say that the tuition is $13,000 a year instead of $40,000. Let's say that you only need $20,000 to live there instead of $25,000 in Boston. That's $33,000 of debt for just one year. That is a pretty big difference. I agree that people in general will be far more impressed with a Harvard degree than one from Groningen, and that will help. It's easier to get into the big-name nonprofits and NGOs, as well as the for-profits, with the Ivy League name. (I disagree that name doesn't matter in nonprofits. I have some friends who consult or intern for big name NGOs and nonprofits as PhD students, and almost all of them are at higher-prestige PhD programs.) I'm not saying it's fair or right, but I've noticed that people (inside and outside of academia - you would think academics would be immune to this but they aren't) react to me a bit differently when they hear where I go to school. Typically, I would say that the pedigree of one school is not going to nab you a higher starting salary in your field - at least not higher enough to justify astronomical raises in debt - it just may help you get a job more easily. But in the nonprofit sector, there's a little more flex in that. Less well-known nonprofits often have abysmal salaries, whereas people working for better-known ones tend to make more money. The location in Boston means that you may be able to start interning at a nonprofit while you are in the MTS, which can turn into a job; Groningen is a smaller city, and interning for a nonprofit there may require knowledge of Dutch (I know everyone in the Netherlands speaks English, but actually working there may necessitate speaking Dutch). There may also be work visa issues. I also agree with Jung…if you want to go to Groningen really badly, and that's where your heart is, then go there and don't look back. But if you are really torn, I would consider Harvard more heavily.

I went to a small HBCU for undergrad and am in a medium-sized predominantly white university for grad school. I don't think I did anything special to adjust/transition; people are people. I think you have to reach beyond stereotypes or prejudices that you may have of people of other races (and yes, we do develop them at HBCUs, sometimes unwittingly) to be able to connect to the others in your cohort. Don't assume that they don't understand; grad students especially can be pretty perceptive about race relations and privilege. I'm not saying that the world is a utopia, but generally other grad students have not treated me any differently because of my race or my college (some of them don't even realize that it is an HBCU until I explain it.) I think you also have to be a little bit more open to explaining things to people of different races. For example, I am currently transitioning my hair from relaxed to natural which has naturally brought up a lot of questions from my non-black friends (which are most of my grad school friends). I've had to explain a little but I've had some really enjoyable conversations about cultural perceptions of beauty - everybody's culture has something. Pretty much every time I've had to explain something race-related I've had these really interesting conversations about what's marginalized in other cultures. It's made me realize on more than just a cognitive/academic level that there are many other ways to be oppressed besides race. I think the most persistent feeling that gets you down sometimes is the feeling that you don't really belong. It pops up every now and then, sometimes for no reason at all, sometimes triggered by a class conversation, sometimes by the fact that all the alumni paintings in the department are of old white men. I think being black can maybe intensify imposter syndrome - any day now they are going to realize that you don't belong. Sometimes there can also be the fear of being perceived as "too black" - maybe slipping into vernacular English, or what the cohort is going to think of you if you get braids (protip: I got UNIVERSALLY positive feedback from students and professors when I wore long braided extensions for 3 months. Seriously, everyone freaking loved it and most people said so. I've gotten really positive feedback on my natural/transitioning hair, too - my non-black friends are my biggest cheerleaders for going natural; they even helped me unbraid my hair!). But those things are not limited to racial experiences - they're how women can feel in male-dominated departments, or LGBT people can feel in mostly straight and cisgendered departments, or people with disabilities can feel in departments with most able-bodied folks. Rinse and repeat. You sort of just take it one day at a time. I don't know, being at a predominantly white university has been a really positive experience for me. It helps that my university is incredibly diverse.

I think it depends on the individual student, but I would say that for a 2-year master's program location and weather should not be significant factors. And even if they were, I don't think they should trump debt. Even if you really hate the weather, you only have to deal with it for 2 years, whereas you will be dealing with that debt for at least 10 years.

If this is an MS, I doubt that you will regret your decision later. A Columbia degree with no aid will set you back $120,000 over two years (cost of attendance is $60K per year). If you are getting significant aid from NYU, then your debt will be reduced. But I don't believe that engineers coming out of Columbia necessarily make significantly more than NYU Poly engineering graduates. I know that MS in engineering salaries can be high, but I don't know if they are $120K high. NYU Poly is a great engineering school and you will likely get employment offers coming from there. If this is for a PhD program, this is a no-brainer - definitely go to NYU. Never pay for a PhD.

This depends on your field and the difference in prestige between the two programs. I don't know much about biomedical science rankings. If they're both top 20 programs I would imagine that the difference is negligible; if one is top 10 and the other is like, top 100, then that may make a difference. You can ask the professors at the program what placement is like from both schools. I would disagree with the statement that you are the product of a single lab; you are also the product of the intellectual environment of that department. It isn't just that you're comparing the better program to a program you feel is a better fit for you; UCSD is the better-reputed program AND it is the better fit for you. I suppose it also depends on how serious your relationship with your girlfriend is, but me and my husband did the long-distance thing (we were engaged at the time) when I got into Columbia and he joined the military. The first 6 months we lived across the country from each other, and then he moved about the same distance from me as Los Angeles is from San Diego. It's not ideal, but we made it work. I think you could make it work, too, and I think you should go to the better program for you - UCSD. It's not like you're considering a school across the country from her; it's a 2-hour drive - close enough for weekend visits.

You have your whole life to live in NYC. Graduate school is only 2 years; you can always move to NYC after you finish graduate school. You don't have to go to grad school here to live here eventually. Also, IMO living in NYC is overrated. I am here as a grad student now and it's ridiculously expensive, and the apartments are tiny. If Newhouse has the better program and it's more affordable, go there. You can always move to NYC later.

I think you should take at least 5: General/Intro Psych Research Methods Stats And then at least two electives related to your area. Abnormal psych is not necessary unless you are interested in mental health or psychopathology (I never took it); neither is developmental unless you are interested in development (I also never took that). I'm not saying don't take them, I'm simply saying that you can substitute something else. Another commonly recommended class in prep for a PhD in the field is History and Systems of Psych, but I avoided that class and have never really found a need for it. Your electives should be driven by your interests. You should definitely take cognitive psych, if you are interested in cognitive, and then something related to that - psychology of learning? Social psychology (if your interests interact there)? Maybe a specialized cognition course?

If you don't have any classes in biology or biological psychology and/or any research in that field, making the jump to neuroscience is unlikely. But your application is very strong for clinical psychology PhD programs.

I wonder this myself; my PhD is in Sociomedical Sciences, but my program is a joint program in Psychology and I've had to complete exactly the same requirements as the psychology PhD students have. I'd rather be in a psychology department than a school of public health. My interests lie at the intersection between social psychology and public health. I am definitely qualified to teach intro psych, social psych, health psych, methods, etc. My advisor seems to think that I have a good chance. I think it depends on the program itself and the research that you do, where you publish, that kind of thing. My advisor is well-known within the field of psychology and could advocate for my placement in a psychology department. All of my TA experience has been in the psych department, and my research is very clearly psychological (and one of my papers will be in Health Psych soon). On the other hand, though, I don't know any faculty in psychology departments who don't have a PhD in psychology.

PhD programs do not train you to be academics only; most clinical psych PhD programs are scientist-practitioner programs, and train students to practice clinical psych as a licensed psychologist. There are only a few clinical science programs that focus primarily on research. All clinical PhD programs will require you to do some research, but the amount and the focus will vary by school. If you want to do systems level or private practice, why don't you consider an MSW and pursue clinical social work? Otherwise, I think the PhD in clinical psych is the way to go.

I am not sure that I would spend $120,000 on an MA in clinical psychology from TC. Even if it did help you get into the #1 clinical psychology program after that, how will you repay all of that money? Could you get a job as a lab assistant or project coordinator in a psychology or psychiatry lab, or even at a school of public health lab? That will give you the opportunity for publishing and conducting research and many universities will pay for a few classes. If you did that for 2-3 years, it would be much cheaper than an MA and would probably function the same way. I've seen 3 lab managers come and go in my current lab, and all of them have been successful in applying to clinical psych programs after they completed 2-3 years of work here. Third poster: how can you not care about the costs? Are you independently wealthy?

Stony Brook definitely sounds like a better fit for you. The only downside is that it's only 1 year - so when you apply to grad schol you will only be 5 months into the program, and your recommenders won't know you that well from there.

I wish I had known about quant psych when I was an undergrad - I certainly would've applied to those programs, as I love statistics and methods. The postdoc I'm looking at now is actually a quantitative postdoc because I want to turn myself into a quant psychologist, lol. Best of luck to you all!

You may have to look a little wider out than your field. So maybe look for PIs that do research on women and trauma; or PIs that do research on PTSD and anxiety experienced after trauma; or PIs that do research on PTSD in general or sexual assalt victimization in general. Then meet/talk to those PIs to find out about their flexibility and ability to support you in doing what you want. Another thing that you may want to remember is that it's difficult to do *exactly* what you want to do in grad school. In most fields, the whole point that we arrive at an area of research is because research is needed in that area, which means there aren't a lot of people doing it already! So what you need is to attend a program that will equip you with the knowledge and the tools to do what you want to do eventually. Lots of people work on something in grad school and then move to something related, but not the same, in their postdoc or faculty positions. My POI and I don't have a perfect match, but we're close enough that when I go on to pursue my own research agenda after leaving here, I know what I need to do.

I can't do it anymore. My first two years of grad school I used to routinely stay up until 6 in the morning working on something and then go to sleep afterwards. Nowadays, I can't. My body won't let me. I start to feel sleepy at 11 pm and I am ready for sleep by midnight (like right now, my eyes are doing the cha-cha!) My internal time clock simply will not let me stay awake past 2 am; even if I try, I inevitably fall asleep around 2 am and usually wake up fully clothed in the middle of the night, looking bewildered, with work scattered all around me. I've even tried coffee to make the all-nighters work on the rare occasion I need them and nope, can't do it. I used to be such a night owl but I am really an early morning person now. I feel most productive between 9 am and 2 pm and my best days are when I make a 7 am workout class and am working on something by 9 am. After about 6 pm I'm ready to settle down and read a book or prepare dinner and veg out with TV. And anyway, I've made it a personal resolve to always get at least 6 but more optimally 8 hours of sleep a night. I feel so much healthier and happier that way. I've actually stuck to that pretty well. I used to think I did my best work under pressure until I started doing work not under pressure. My work is SO much better when I have time to outline it, think about it, work on it steadily and proofread it. SO. MUCH. BETTER. I feel like a real adult, y'all!

Most of the things that article says are true - in graduate school, you won't be paid well and you will be expected to do a lot of research. Engineering is a little different - postdocs are less common than in the life sciences and other physical sciences - but I think it's becoming even more common for engineering PhD students to do postdocs before moving into a faculty job. And the academic market seems to be contracting; most PhD holders won't find tenure-track faculty jobs. With that said, I'm in my 5th year of a PhD program. At various points I have struggled with whether to stay or go, finish or not; at times, I have regretted my decision. But overall, I can say that I've enjoyed the intellectual and personal development I've experienced here. Part of that likely would've happened regardless of whether I'd started a PhD program. But at some point during the journey I realized that I just didn't care as much as other students did. I don't know how to explain it better, but it's just like - some students were really willing to put in the 10-hour days, 7 days a week, and live and breathe their research all the time because that's just their passion. That's not me, though. I'd rather sleep or read a novel (although a lot of the things I read are related to my field, so I know I'm passionate about it, just in a different way). Chasing tenure So I decided that I was going to do whatever I wanted to do, and not much more. That's worked out for me - I have publications, I have an NSF, I have a pending postdoc offer a year out from even finishing. That's while volunteering in my community on weekends, taking off Saturdays (and more recently Sundays as well!), getting married, and working as a residential life paraprofessional sheerly because I enjoy it. It's because "whatever I want to do" also includes writing and analyzing data and working on the problems of my field. I genuinely enjoy the research, and not pressuring myself to be The Best has helped to discover that I really do like this. I think the students who are the most successful are the ones who have a true, deep passion for answering questions in their field and really like to do research (even if you could theoretically imagine yourself doing something else). I say all this to say - yea, sometimes a grad program is absolutely miserable and you just want to cry for hours. And other times, it's amazing. I think that's like most jobs, honestly. If you can spend 5-6 years in a program knowing that the likelihood you'll get a tenure-track job is really slim, and you don't really care because you love the research a lot, then…maybe a PhD is for you. I'm not even sure I WANT a tenure-track job but I know I want a job using the skills I am learning in a PhD program. Also, if you can learn to think of those 5-7 years as an actual period of your life and not a holding cell or that you're "waiting to start your life," then you'll be happier. Once I realized that a PhD was actually real life and not just preparation for a future I started doing things that made me happy, too. And the more practical consideration is - do you need a PhD to do what you want to do? If you don't, 95% of the time I will say don't get it. If most of the people who do what you want to do in the next 5, 10, 15 years do not have a PhD, then don't get one. To me, there's little point in taking the 5-7 years it takes to get one if you don't need it, unless you just want it for personal edification.

I think this issue is completely overblown. In my field, if you attend Michigan or Stanford (two of the top programs) for undergrad and really get into a good project there - let's say you were interested in racial discrimination in social situations; both of those programs are noted for their work in this area - and get into their PhD program and decide to stay - and are productive - then there's NO reason someone (re: hiring committees) would turn their nose up at you because you got your bachelor's there as well. TBQH when I look at people's CVs I don't even notice where they went to undergrad anymore, because it's sort of irrelevant at this point. And when I talk to people about postdocs now, nobody asks me about my undergrad experiences. Getting exposed to different ideas is a great thing, but there are other ways to do that besides attending a different school for your PhD; there are always postdocs; and it's a bad idea to turn down a great program that is a great fit for you just because you went there for undergrad. I'd say that's true regardless of the ranking of the program. I also disagree that spending 5 years somewhere as an undergrad or master's student means you have taken all that you can from it. Being somewhere as an undergrad is completely different than being somewhere as a PhD student. You may not have even begun to touch the graduate level courses offered there, much less taken advantage of the university's support for grad students. Professors will interact with you on a different level. There is so much that is different about being a grad student somewhere from being an undergrad, especially at a very large research university, that I don't think undergrads can conclude that they've gotten all they can out of a place.

That depends on you and your willingness to balance the prestige/opportunities of a program with uncertainty of funding. I entered a PhD program with a 7.5 year time to degree. Even though I only planned to spend 5-6 years max at this school, they offered me 3 years of funding. They said that students typically found a way to fund their last years. I decided to take a chance because otherwise, this program was a dream. Fast forward nearly 5 years and that's proven true for me. I used the institutional funding my first 2 years and won an NSF GRFP for my next 3. I have one more year left and I have a couple of options on the table for how to fund that. My colleagues have all also pretty much found ways to fund their extra years, as well. Also, that doesn't sound like shaky funding - it's not like they said you have to compete for outside funding. Basically it just sounds like the first 2 years are from the department without the expectation of a research assistantship - to give you the opportunity to finish up coursework. After that, you're expected to be an RA on someone's grants. That's not uncommon in programs.

Social work doesn't seem like one of those fields that is really prestige-driven. It's also not a field with very high salaries. If you have to borrow all or most of the cost at both schools, then Utah would be my choice.

To be honest, I'm not sure what "liberal studies" MA programs are intended to do and what kinds of jobs you are eligible for afterwards. If NYU is your ultimate dream school and your desire is to become a journalist, I don't see any reason to get an MA in a very general field from the New School.