HyacinthMacaw

Wow, that's awesome! Glad it worked out for you!

Hey folks, Hope everyone is doing reasonably OK. I've been thinking about how an advisor who has done work to advance some controversial theory and earned enemies in the field can both promote and hinder your success. I mean, it's inevitable as social psychologists to take theoretical positions on controversial academic issues, but I get the impression that some people and theories simply rankle a few nerves more than others. Perhaps a controversial advisor is inherently prominent, or at least has won the respect of his or her peers to publish widely. So having a such an advisor can earn you a second look when applying for jobs. On the other hand, I can imagine that it's easy for people in the field to stereotype you and develop preconceptions that they can't easily surrender. For instance, every time I give a talk at a conference, I wouldn't want to preface everything I say with "I worked under Professor X but don't agree with him/her 100% on every issue." Similarly, I wouldn't want to spend most of the Q&A defending my advisor's theory rather than fielding comments about the study I've presented. Even if there is flexibility within a doctoral program to pursue projects that have not been spearheaded for the sole purpose of lending support for a particular theory, somehow I feel that having a controversial advisor can haunt someone for years. After all, what if someone who disagrees with my advisor's controversial theory is reviewing the manuscripts I submit for publication? It's not inconceivable that theoretical adversaries have rejected each other's work, that being embroiled in such disputes can halt publication rates to a trickle. In my area, intergroup relations, I can think of at least a half-dozen controversial theories and their major proponents. Feel free to add to this list. What do you all think about the advantages and disadvantages of advisors who have courted controversy but nevertheless have stature in the field? Stereotype content model - Susan Fiske Social dominance theory - Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto System justification - John Jost, Aaron Kay Decategorization - Norman Miller and Marilynn Brewer Superordinate categorization - Jack Dovidio and Sam Gaertner Stereotype accuracy - Lee Jussim Realistic group conflict theory - John Levine, others

I think it's a great sign that they are considering you for a fellowship. Perhaps they have placed you on a short list (if not already admitted you) and are working to secure funding for you. I could be mistaken--but I think some cautious optimism is warranted. I do believe some programs like to offer applicants admission and provide funding info later, while others prefer to have a funding package lined up when notifying applicants of admission. It's possible this program falls into the latter category. Hope that helps, and all the best!

I'm sorry to keep plugging this MA program on this site, but I truly believe folks who would like additional research experience and are interested in intergroup relations can benefit. Here's what I said verbatim about the MSc in Group Processes and Intergroup Relations at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK: There is also a great one-year master's program in Group Processes and Intergroup Relations at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. Kent houses the research center that publishes the Group Processes and Intergroup Relations journal. Lots of great faculty there--Dominic Abrams, Richard Crisp, etc. I contacted the psych admissions office, and they said to apply by Easter at the latest, but earlier if you would like to be considered for assistantships. I am thinking that I should know by late April if any Ph.D. program offers me admission, and if none do, I will apply to the Kent master's program as a backup (of course, going abroad for a year comes at a great personal expense, but it is something, at least a "Plan Z"). Best of all, I believe the admissions rate for their master's program is higher than most U.S. Ph.D. programs. Here's the link to info about the MSc program at Kent: http://www.kent.ac.u...ons-msc/outline I'd also like to add to the chorus of voices discouraging other applicants from applying solely on the basis of undergrad reputation. I do think it's perfectly fine to apply to programs with strong reputations in social psychology, and of course even better to seek the tutelage of advisors who are prominent in their area (e.g., intergroup relations). Simply put, pick the professor, not the school. This can backfire, however--advisors who serve on several editorial boards, have executive positions in APS, SPSP, etc. can often devote little time to actually mentoring their students. And they may not be as productive in terms of research projects as they used to be. Not to patronize the original poster, but there are dozens of great figures in intergroup relations who did not attend an Ivy League university for their Ph.D.; likewise, there are lots of people who studied in the Ivy League but have not been as successful. Jack Dovidio went to the University of Delaware (and worked with Sam Gaertner, who received his Ph.D. from CUNY) Jim Sidanius went to the University of Stockholm. Terri Vescio - University of Kansas Nicole Shelton - University of Virginia Laurie Rudman - University of Minnesota Brenda Major - Purdue Univ. Dave Amodio - Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Chris Crandall, Monica Biernat, Lee Jussim, etc. - Univ. of MIchigan I could go on. Northwestern University (Norman Miller, Marilynn Brewer) and NYU (Charles Stangor, Felicia Pratto) also have distinguished alumni. So seriously, let's put to rest this notion that at the grad school level a Ph.D. from the Ivy League matters more than the originality and cogency of your ideas, your productivity, technical proficiency, elegance of your experimental designs, perseverance, rapport with colleagues, and skill in collaborating with others. I, for one, will be absolutely thrilled to attend a state school (if I'm fortunate enough to be admitted) where there are professors doing some compelling work in intergroup relations.

It's OK, not to fret--if it was a professor, he or she would have likely left a voicemail or resorted to a secondary contact number or email. I was called from an office phone on the university's campus, and the ID displayed an unfamiliar area code rather than "unavailable." All the best!

Aw shucks, I've already reached my quota of positive votes for the day. Cute pets (and their caretakers) are AWESOME. Keep 'em coming!

Awesome, sounds like you've got clearly defined goals. Not many people have that in clinical psych--I know I didn't! All the best to you in your research, which I am sure is fascinating, and I hope everything works out well!

Cool! I love pets, and I love plants, so pet + plant = Chia Pet. Or a real pet could do just as well! See the "Animal Companions" thread in Waiting It Out.

This is Jerry, my feathered friend. He is a 12-year old Goffin's cockatoo that has been with my family for the past 5 years. He loves head, neck, and back massages, and he can do jumping jacks (well, as far as it's anatomically possible). His favorite foods besides his regular pellets: green pepper seeds, millet, corn, Cheerios, apple slices, bread, pasta, green beans, and cucumbers. We call him the "crack addict of love" because he is so attached to us. He is such a FLUFF BALL--he puffs up his feathers, raises one leg, and perches wherever he is with absolutely no care in the world. He's so pretty and cute! He can only say one word--"Jerry"--but every time he does it really just warms your heart like nothing else. I love him so much!

Cool! Sometimes we're just in the right place at the right time (which I'm discovering also happens to people during the application cycle). Are you interested in clinical science (an academic career), or do you see yourself primarily as a clinician? Many of the clinical science programs (e.g., Harvard) explicitly discourage clinically oriented folks from applying. In PsyD or other PhD programs that don't impose such heavy demands to conduct research, I've heard that people can get a lot more clinical training done in less time. Just asking, though not to patronize you--you've probably already asked yourself these questions. I myself seriously considered clinical psych until I realized that I either needed to specialize or back out; an adjunct lecturer and practicing psychologist warned me that the field is already pretty saturated. The message I got is that there are just too many people out of grad school seeking to become clinical psychologists who treat a wide range of disorders in private practice. It's brutally difficult to find work. Part of me still aches to become a clinical psychologist, and if I were to heed that impulse I would pick a population or disorder or subfield (e.g., health or neuropsychology) that interested me and then run with it. This really speaks to the whole fit issue, too--if you want to specialize in culture-responsive therapy for ethnic minorities, then you apply to programs that have reputations in minority mental health.

Glad to see a lot of sci-fi fans here. I've been keeping up with Fringe and hoping that it won't get canceled. I watch a ton of Food Network and cook just as much. In fact, cooking has become sort of a safety behavior--an unhealthy way to cope with anxiety during the application season. My family's bird, a Goffin's cockatoo named Jerry, keeps me company. Can't say I haven't gone crazy nevertheless, but then again I think we've all got some loose screws up there.

Thank you, and same to you! This is a great way to stave off the isolation that inevitably arises from being the only person one knows applying to grad school. Neither my folks at home nor my friends understand the process; the only ones who do are those who are going through it themselves! Have a great day!

Aw, I believe I'll do a similar thing with my family's bird--I'll let him down on to the floor where we can take turns doing jumping jacks. (Every time I jump, he jumps, though I don't think he gets the part about clapping and spreading your legs.) Then I'll recline in a chair and pet him real good while he's on my chest. And I'll top it all off with a nice treat for him--a big stalk of millet with fresh apple on the side! And oh, can't forget the Cheerios and corn! And raw pumpkin seeds! Yum!

I'm so sorry, you must be feeling pretty lousy about that, but take heart! We can do good science practically anywhere. "What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are small matters compared to what lies within us." That's Ralph Waldo Emerson. Honestly, no matter where we go, we'll still have our own intellect and passion to accompany us. Everything else--funding, program/POI reputation, location, etc.--is just gravy. It's mirrored in the debate about whether going to a prestigious private university for undergrad instead of a less prestigious public one really impacts one's success when he or she is already motivated to succeed. And it turns out that it really doesn't matter. The quality of the student, as measured by your determination, creativity, breadth of knowledge, etc. (all of which can be honed to some degree), seem to account for his or her success more so than the institutions he or she attends, though of course I'm sure studying in a "top choice" program might make life a little easier at the grad school level. So perhaps the program in which you enroll merely facilitates your success and is not outright causal.

Our thread here just hit 25,000 views! World peace at last.

That's freaking insane. You have to believe that plenty of rejections, if not most of them, have nothing to do with merit. They hired four new faculty last year, I think, and I've read on this site that new faculty have first dibs on selecting from the applicant pool. If any of us were interested in more established faculty (e.g., Heilman, Uleman, Jost, etc.), perhaps only the absolute top applicant for each such POI was invited for an interview, and with no guarantee of admission if younger faculty members' selections accepted their offers. I think that the info about circumstance (fit, need, and priority) playing a large role in admissions was posted by socialpsychg in the psych thread "How much research is enough?" Hope everyone is doing OK!

Thanks for this info! The more I learn about this process, the more I'm surprised that circumstance (fit, need, and priority, as you say) factors just as heavily in admissions decisions as raw credentials. In a way, this relieves some of the tendency to criticize ourselves since we can partly attribute rejections to forces outside our control. Thanks again!

Master's degrees are sufficient to apply for posts at community colleges, though doctoral degrees render one more attractive in a competitive job market. This article might give you a better idea of what it's like to be a tenured professor at a community college: http://chronicle.com/article/Not-a-Bad-Gig/45224 Salary information is here: http://www.cupahr.org/surveys/files/salary0708/CCFSS08ExecSummary.pdf I've heard that salaries at community colleges in wealthy suburbs (e.g., Nassau County near NYC) can meet or exceed those at some four-year public colleges. Hope that helps!

Wow, congrats, you must feel great! Time to celebrate!

I think the invitation to establish further contact is a good sign--a sign that your POI/adcom is interested in your application and are impressed with your credentials and degree of fit. I agree with previous posters to prepare for it as an interview even if it may be just an informal conversation about your research interests. I read on the University of Florida psychology website that successful interviewing at the grad school level is characterized by "the three I's": Interested, Informed, and Inquisitive. That is, the best thing you can do is convey your interest in the program, know the program inside and out, and ask lots of questions (not to patronize you; you and other folks are probably already aware of this). And of course, maintain your composure and appear pleasant and sociable throughout. Nothing magical about it. Congrats!

This thread is a real hoot!

Sounds like a good plan! You do the best you can with the hand that you've been dealt; I think it's great you've got a realistic option with which you could be satisfied should things not pan out as you hope they would. I'd like to apply to the master's program in Group Processes and Intergroup Relations at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. I wrote about it on this site before, so here's what I said verbatim: There is also a great one-year master's program in Group Processes and Intergroup Relations at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. Kent houses the research center that publishes the Group Processes and Intergroup Relations journal. Lots of great faculty there--Dominic Abrams, Richard Crisp, etc. I contacted the psych admissions office, and they said to apply by Easter at the latest, but earlier if you would like to be considered for assistantships. I am thinking that I should know by late April if any Ph.D. program offers me admission, and if none do, I will apply to the Kent master's program as a backup (of course, going abroad for a year comes at a great personal expense, but it is something, at least a "Plan Z"). Best of all, I believe the admissions rate for their master's program is higher than most U.S. Ph.D. programs. Here's the link to info about the MSc program at Kent: http://www.kent.ac.u...ons-msc/outline

Hey folks, Just thought it would be cool to start this thread about our plans for V-Day. I'm single, but if I had a girlfriend I would cook breakfast, lunch, and dinner for her as best I could, then present her with the result of my foray into woodworking. Not really into the whole roses and jewelry thing. Yeah, you can tell it's been a while since I've celebrated Valentine's Day with someone. By the way, I was reminded the other day about how seldom we practice self-compassion, and I think V-Day is a great opportunity for singles to do this rather than wallow in drunken self-pity. Maybe we can reward ourselves for our hard work during the application season, i.e. avoid being so hard on ourselves. Maybe we can participate in our favorite activities and go out of our way to, as I like to put it, accumulate positive emotions, self-soothe, and let go of harsh judgments about ourselves. Loving ourselves sounds corny, but I really think it's the foundation for a happier life.

By the way, I've been doing a similar thing where I go on yelp and check out the best cheap eats near the universities I'm applying to. I had no idea Penn State has its own creamery (over 100 flavors!) and that apparently many people swear that the best pizza on Earth can be found in New Haven. And oh, there's actually a place called Cafe Beautiful in Lawrence, KS.

23 and happy to subject myself to the indentured servitude and prospects for marginal employment that characterize life as a grad student!