cherubie

I had the exact same question as you just a week ago, and I successfully "negotiated" a higher stipend for myself. I put negotiate in quotations because I wasn't bargaining, neither was I trying to use another acceptance as leverage. I have already verbally accepted an offer to my top choice and later got an email from my second choice offering me almost 2x as much money as my first. I wrote my POI an email, stating whether there are opportunities for other scholarships/fellowship offers and also stated I did got offered X amount from another school. I kind of regretted my decision afterwards, because 1) it is VERY awkward to talk money, and 2) I didn't want to give the impression I was going to withdraw my decision (which I wasn't under any circumstances!). But we talked on the phone, I explained to my POI my point of view (i.e. that I'm just trying to look at all my options, and that I am in no way using the second school as leverage or threatening to withdraw). It all worked out, because I received an email shortly after our convo stating what my stipend would (and could) be...which turns out to be a little bit higher than before. 
 
BTW, I am a female if that makes any difference to you. The biggest thing is IF this is your top choice and you absolutely want to go there, do not use the second offer as leverage. I've been told this could come off the wrong way and annoy your POI or make you appear greedy. Just talk to him/her in a straightforward manner. For example, I mentioned I'm looking into apartments right now and I just need to know which ones I can afford. 
 
I think as long as you are honest and polite, it couldn't hurt. The worse thing that could happen is your school stays firm with their offer.

I'm not sure if you already had your interview, but I just got back from a 2-day interview with 12 faculty total. My strategy consists of the following:
 
1) You don't have to memorize 16 different bios. The faculty that I met with (other than my POI) did not even mention their research, and clearly did not expected me to know it either. I was actually the one to bring up questions about their studies. They didn't quiz me on their methods or anything at all. So you don't have to worry about memorizing all 16 bios. With that said, I did walked in having SOME idea of what they do. This not only makes you feel more confident, but if you get tired of getting asked all the questions, you can turn the table and ask THEM about their research. The faculty whose research someone matched my POI's, I did read a paper or two and asked questions pointed to that topic. But again, from my experience, they definitely do not expect you to memorize their research as long as it is not in your field.
 
2) Know YOUR stuff. A lot (if not all) of the faculty I met with really just wanted to see how much of a fit I would be with my POI. They are all colleagues, and they may know things about your POI that you don't. This may include research, personality, working style, etc. They just want to see whether you will be a good fit given their knowledge. In doing this, half the faculty asked very pointed and specific questions about my research. One even asked me what my hypothesis is or what I expect to find on a certain topic based on what I said I wanted to research. So if you want to study the effect of X on Z, it would be wise to have at least a running hypothesis based on the current literature. My answer wasn't field changing or ground shattering, but I was able to say something along the lines of "based on the current trend/XYZ results, my hypothesis/guess would be I would find...". Know every poster/paper/experience you have on your CV. One faculty "grilled" me on a very specific method and challenged it (in a friendly way) because she was interested in incorporating it into her work. 
 
3) Many questions will be similar. While it seemed like each faculty I met with assessed me from a different angle, a lot of the questions were very similar. One asked how am I a fit with the POI and what can I bring to the table...pretty typical question to expect, but you should also have a good answer. So even though I met with 10+ people over 2 days, it wasn't like each interview was so vastly different that I had to prepare for each of them in entirely different ways. 
 
Some things I did that i think helped me (I received an offer shortly after, so I think my strategy helped...somewhat
-C.O.N.F.I.D.E.N.C.E.! I was nervous before the interview, my heart was racing and I had no idea what to expect. A lot of the feedback I got from grad students about what to expect from each faculty was vague and didn't settle my nerves (in fact, it made it worse even though they all mean well). But once I sat down on the "hot seat" I felt like I'd be able to handle any question they throw at me. In fact, on multiple occasions  as I talked about my own research/ideas, I told them straight out that if they have ANY questions, ask me at any time. To me, this shows I am ready to handle their questions and that I'm not just yapping on to waste time.
-DETAILS. Most of my answers were very detailed and I tried my best to show that I did my research on the school, and I know more about my own background than just the surface. It's good to spit out a bunch of smart words and jargons, but can you back it up? 
-Everyone is human. Faculty is not god, they are not magical beings in some realm of magic science. They are human. They have personalities. They may be rude, nice, tired, uninterested, etc. Imagine interviewing 20+ applicants over a span of 2 days! That's a lot of work! So don't analyze every blink of an eye, every twitch in their seat, every time they check their email while you're talking. Just be yourself and know that they have been through this before as well.
 
BTW, I found that a lot of professors/people I met with didn't care much for talking about their research. They usually turn the question around at ME. I think what helped me is that I had specific questions about their research...or questions related to the field I'm applying for. For example, if someone works on cancer research, it's one thing to say "I understand you're working on the ABC transcription factor in hyperproliferating cells (just made up that word), can you elaborate on it"...BUT I also feel it's very important to follow up with "what do you think about this process in the transcription process, how does a muted allele for XYZ RNA affect the proliferation of cells". Obviously, I made this up...but the point is, if you're going to talk to them about their research, make sure it's not just you getting them to talk so you don't have to.
 
Okay GOOD LUCK!

I'm not sure if you already had your interview, but I just got back from a 2-day interview with 12 faculty total. My strategy consists of the following:
 
1) You don't have to memorize 16 different bios. The faculty that I met with (other than my POI) did not even mention their research, and clearly did not expected me to know it either. I was actually the one to bring up questions about their studies. They didn't quiz me on their methods or anything at all. So you don't have to worry about memorizing all 16 bios. With that said, I did walked in having SOME idea of what they do. This not only makes you feel more confident, but if you get tired of getting asked all the questions, you can turn the table and ask THEM about their research. The faculty whose research someone matched my POI's, I did read a paper or two and asked questions pointed to that topic. But again, from my experience, they definitely do not expect you to memorize their research as long as it is not in your field.
 
2) Know YOUR stuff. A lot (if not all) of the faculty I met with really just wanted to see how much of a fit I would be with my POI. They are all colleagues, and they may know things about your POI that you don't. This may include research, personality, working style, etc. They just want to see whether you will be a good fit given their knowledge. In doing this, half the faculty asked very pointed and specific questions about my research. One even asked me what my hypothesis is or what I expect to find on a certain topic based on what I said I wanted to research. So if you want to study the effect of X on Z, it would be wise to have at least a running hypothesis based on the current literature. My answer wasn't field changing or ground shattering, but I was able to say something along the lines of "based on the current trend/XYZ results, my hypothesis/guess would be I would find...". Know every poster/paper/experience you have on your CV. One faculty "grilled" me on a very specific method and challenged it (in a friendly way) because she was interested in incorporating it into her work. 
 
3) Many questions will be similar. While it seemed like each faculty I met with assessed me from a different angle, a lot of the questions were very similar. One asked how am I a fit with the POI and what can I bring to the table...pretty typical question to expect, but you should also have a good answer. So even though I met with 10+ people over 2 days, it wasn't like each interview was so vastly different that I had to prepare for each of them in entirely different ways. 
 
Some things I did that i think helped me (I received an offer shortly after, so I think my strategy helped...somewhat
-C.O.N.F.I.D.E.N.C.E.! I was nervous before the interview, my heart was racing and I had no idea what to expect. A lot of the feedback I got from grad students about what to expect from each faculty was vague and didn't settle my nerves (in fact, it made it worse even though they all mean well). But once I sat down on the "hot seat" I felt like I'd be able to handle any question they throw at me. In fact, on multiple occasions  as I talked about my own research/ideas, I told them straight out that if they have ANY questions, ask me at any time. To me, this shows I am ready to handle their questions and that I'm not just yapping on to waste time.
-DETAILS. Most of my answers were very detailed and I tried my best to show that I did my research on the school, and I know more about my own background than just the surface. It's good to spit out a bunch of smart words and jargons, but can you back it up? 
-Everyone is human. Faculty is not god, they are not magical beings in some realm of magic science. They are human. They have personalities. They may be rude, nice, tired, uninterested, etc. Imagine interviewing 20+ applicants over a span of 2 days! That's a lot of work! So don't analyze every blink of an eye, every twitch in their seat, every time they check their email while you're talking. Just be yourself and know that they have been through this before as well.
 
BTW, I found that a lot of professors/people I met with didn't care much for talking about their research. They usually turn the question around at ME. I think what helped me is that I had specific questions about their research...or questions related to the field I'm applying for. For example, if someone works on cancer research, it's one thing to say "I understand you're working on the ABC transcription factor in hyperproliferating cells (just made up that word), can you elaborate on it"...BUT I also feel it's very important to follow up with "what do you think about this process in the transcription process, how does a muted allele for XYZ RNA affect the proliferation of cells". Obviously, I made this up...but the point is, if you're going to talk to them about their research, make sure it's not just you getting them to talk so you don't have to.
 
Okay GOOD LUCK!

I'm not sure if you already had your interview, but I just got back from a 2-day interview with 12 faculty total. My strategy consists of the following:
 
1) You don't have to memorize 16 different bios. The faculty that I met with (other than my POI) did not even mention their research, and clearly did not expected me to know it either. I was actually the one to bring up questions about their studies. They didn't quiz me on their methods or anything at all. So you don't have to worry about memorizing all 16 bios. With that said, I did walked in having SOME idea of what they do. This not only makes you feel more confident, but if you get tired of getting asked all the questions, you can turn the table and ask THEM about their research. The faculty whose research someone matched my POI's, I did read a paper or two and asked questions pointed to that topic. But again, from my experience, they definitely do not expect you to memorize their research as long as it is not in your field.
 
2) Know YOUR stuff. A lot (if not all) of the faculty I met with really just wanted to see how much of a fit I would be with my POI. They are all colleagues, and they may know things about your POI that you don't. This may include research, personality, working style, etc. They just want to see whether you will be a good fit given their knowledge. In doing this, half the faculty asked very pointed and specific questions about my research. One even asked me what my hypothesis is or what I expect to find on a certain topic based on what I said I wanted to research. So if you want to study the effect of X on Z, it would be wise to have at least a running hypothesis based on the current literature. My answer wasn't field changing or ground shattering, but I was able to say something along the lines of "based on the current trend/XYZ results, my hypothesis/guess would be I would find...". Know every poster/paper/experience you have on your CV. One faculty "grilled" me on a very specific method and challenged it (in a friendly way) because she was interested in incorporating it into her work. 
 
3) Many questions will be similar. While it seemed like each faculty I met with assessed me from a different angle, a lot of the questions were very similar. One asked how am I a fit with the POI and what can I bring to the table...pretty typical question to expect, but you should also have a good answer. So even though I met with 10+ people over 2 days, it wasn't like each interview was so vastly different that I had to prepare for each of them in entirely different ways. 
 
Some things I did that i think helped me (I received an offer shortly after, so I think my strategy helped...somewhat
-C.O.N.F.I.D.E.N.C.E.! I was nervous before the interview, my heart was racing and I had no idea what to expect. A lot of the feedback I got from grad students about what to expect from each faculty was vague and didn't settle my nerves (in fact, it made it worse even though they all mean well). But once I sat down on the "hot seat" I felt like I'd be able to handle any question they throw at me. In fact, on multiple occasions  as I talked about my own research/ideas, I told them straight out that if they have ANY questions, ask me at any time. To me, this shows I am ready to handle their questions and that I'm not just yapping on to waste time.
-DETAILS. Most of my answers were very detailed and I tried my best to show that I did my research on the school, and I know more about my own background than just the surface. It's good to spit out a bunch of smart words and jargons, but can you back it up? 
-Everyone is human. Faculty is not god, they are not magical beings in some realm of magic science. They are human. They have personalities. They may be rude, nice, tired, uninterested, etc. Imagine interviewing 20+ applicants over a span of 2 days! That's a lot of work! So don't analyze every blink of an eye, every twitch in their seat, every time they check their email while you're talking. Just be yourself and know that they have been through this before as well.
 
BTW, I found that a lot of professors/people I met with didn't care much for talking about their research. They usually turn the question around at ME. I think what helped me is that I had specific questions about their research...or questions related to the field I'm applying for. For example, if someone works on cancer research, it's one thing to say "I understand you're working on the ABC transcription factor in hyperproliferating cells (just made up that word), can you elaborate on it"...BUT I also feel it's very important to follow up with "what do you think about this process in the transcription process, how does a muted allele for XYZ RNA affect the proliferation of cells". Obviously, I made this up...but the point is, if you're going to talk to them about their research, make sure it's not just you getting them to talk so you don't have to.
 
Okay GOOD LUCK!

I'm not sure if you already had your interview, but I just got back from a 2-day interview with 12 faculty total. My strategy consists of the following:
 
1) You don't have to memorize 16 different bios. The faculty that I met with (other than my POI) did not even mention their research, and clearly did not expected me to know it either. I was actually the one to bring up questions about their studies. They didn't quiz me on their methods or anything at all. So you don't have to worry about memorizing all 16 bios. With that said, I did walked in having SOME idea of what they do. This not only makes you feel more confident, but if you get tired of getting asked all the questions, you can turn the table and ask THEM about their research. The faculty whose research someone matched my POI's, I did read a paper or two and asked questions pointed to that topic. But again, from my experience, they definitely do not expect you to memorize their research as long as it is not in your field.
 
2) Know YOUR stuff. A lot (if not all) of the faculty I met with really just wanted to see how much of a fit I would be with my POI. They are all colleagues, and they may know things about your POI that you don't. This may include research, personality, working style, etc. They just want to see whether you will be a good fit given their knowledge. In doing this, half the faculty asked very pointed and specific questions about my research. One even asked me what my hypothesis is or what I expect to find on a certain topic based on what I said I wanted to research. So if you want to study the effect of X on Z, it would be wise to have at least a running hypothesis based on the current literature. My answer wasn't field changing or ground shattering, but I was able to say something along the lines of "based on the current trend/XYZ results, my hypothesis/guess would be I would find...". Know every poster/paper/experience you have on your CV. One faculty "grilled" me on a very specific method and challenged it (in a friendly way) because she was interested in incorporating it into her work. 
 
3) Many questions will be similar. While it seemed like each faculty I met with assessed me from a different angle, a lot of the questions were very similar. One asked how am I a fit with the POI and what can I bring to the table...pretty typical question to expect, but you should also have a good answer. So even though I met with 10+ people over 2 days, it wasn't like each interview was so vastly different that I had to prepare for each of them in entirely different ways. 
 
Some things I did that i think helped me (I received an offer shortly after, so I think my strategy helped...somewhat
-C.O.N.F.I.D.E.N.C.E.! I was nervous before the interview, my heart was racing and I had no idea what to expect. A lot of the feedback I got from grad students about what to expect from each faculty was vague and didn't settle my nerves (in fact, it made it worse even though they all mean well). But once I sat down on the "hot seat" I felt like I'd be able to handle any question they throw at me. In fact, on multiple occasions  as I talked about my own research/ideas, I told them straight out that if they have ANY questions, ask me at any time. To me, this shows I am ready to handle their questions and that I'm not just yapping on to waste time.
-DETAILS. Most of my answers were very detailed and I tried my best to show that I did my research on the school, and I know more about my own background than just the surface. It's good to spit out a bunch of smart words and jargons, but can you back it up? 
-Everyone is human. Faculty is not god, they are not magical beings in some realm of magic science. They are human. They have personalities. They may be rude, nice, tired, uninterested, etc. Imagine interviewing 20+ applicants over a span of 2 days! That's a lot of work! So don't analyze every blink of an eye, every twitch in their seat, every time they check their email while you're talking. Just be yourself and know that they have been through this before as well.
 
BTW, I found that a lot of professors/people I met with didn't care much for talking about their research. They usually turn the question around at ME. I think what helped me is that I had specific questions about their research...or questions related to the field I'm applying for. For example, if someone works on cancer research, it's one thing to say "I understand you're working on the ABC transcription factor in hyperproliferating cells (just made up that word), can you elaborate on it"...BUT I also feel it's very important to follow up with "what do you think about this process in the transcription process, how does a muted allele for XYZ RNA affect the proliferation of cells". Obviously, I made this up...but the point is, if you're going to talk to them about their research, make sure it's not just you getting them to talk so you don't have to.
 
Okay GOOD LUCK!

The best advice I can give (based on 2 in person interviews and 2 semi-phone interviews) is CONFIDENCE. You can't possibly prepare for every single question you'll get asked. Of course, know your stuff (if there's something on your CV you can't at least say a few sentences about, it probably should't be on there in the first place) and know their stuff peripherally (they won't grill you on their work). But on top of that, come in with confidence. I come in with an attitude of "I may not know everything, but I can definitely learn." 
 
Another thing is to make sure you have questions. I prepared a page+ of questions per school, and didn't get to really ask most of them. Most of my questions stemmed from the conversation itself. With that said, be prepared with some initial questions. Don't ask anything that is already on the website (i.e. match rates), don't ask anything to shows you didn't do your homework either. 
 
I got asked a ridiculously out there question from 2 people during my interviews, but the biggest thing is knowing how to take a step back, think, and answer to the best of your ability. I also had another interview with the director where I was asking all the questions. I even asked him if he had any questions for me and the answer was pretty much no. So be prepared to have a discussion and to be able to lead that discussion if need be.
 
Lastly, even though the advice I received and read is that you don't need to know other faculty who are not your POI's work, I find that having a brief understanding of their work helps. It helps as a conversation starter if anything. Plus, by the end of the day after meeting with 5 people, you do get tired of repeating the same thing over and over. 
 
Good luck to all of us!

The best advice I can give (based on 2 in person interviews and 2 semi-phone interviews) is CONFIDENCE. You can't possibly prepare for every single question you'll get asked. Of course, know your stuff (if there's something on your CV you can't at least say a few sentences about, it probably should't be on there in the first place) and know their stuff peripherally (they won't grill you on their work). But on top of that, come in with confidence. I come in with an attitude of "I may not know everything, but I can definitely learn." 
 
Another thing is to make sure you have questions. I prepared a page+ of questions per school, and didn't get to really ask most of them. Most of my questions stemmed from the conversation itself. With that said, be prepared with some initial questions. Don't ask anything that is already on the website (i.e. match rates), don't ask anything to shows you didn't do your homework either. 
 
I got asked a ridiculously out there question from 2 people during my interviews, but the biggest thing is knowing how to take a step back, think, and answer to the best of your ability. I also had another interview with the director where I was asking all the questions. I even asked him if he had any questions for me and the answer was pretty much no. So be prepared to have a discussion and to be able to lead that discussion if need be.
 
Lastly, even though the advice I received and read is that you don't need to know other faculty who are not your POI's work, I find that having a brief understanding of their work helps. It helps as a conversation starter if anything. Plus, by the end of the day after meeting with 5 people, you do get tired of repeating the same thing over and over. 
 
Good luck to all of us!

Okay, I'm bored so, here goes (true convo, btw):

Person: Oh...you're applying to grad school, where?
Me: I really want to go to California.
Person: Where in Cali? I applied there.
Me: Uhmm...I'm looking at UCLA, USC and some others
Person: Hmm..and you think you're gonna get in?
Me: I don't know, I know it's competitive, but I really like Cali.
Person:You want to go to UCLA? I applied there, I didn't even get an interview...so....
Me:

My future conversation with this person (in my head, this is how it'll play out):
Me: Hey, I got into UCLA
Person:
Me: You mentioned you applied and didn't even get an interview right?...so....

I have a feeling this scenario won't happen either A) i won't get in or B ) I'm not that vindictive.

I agree with the first part of this response. My main "fear" is disappointing myself, and ultimately, it comes down to prestige. Numerous people ask me "what" I am (i.e. my role in the lab), and somehow, the words "graduate student" sound more prestigious to them, and more worthy of their time. My family is counting on me to get in, as I am a first generation college student. When I was in high school, all they wanted was for me to go to college. When I went to a prestigious college, all they want is for me to graduate. Now? All the way is for me to get into grad school. I'm sure after that happens, "all they want" is the Nobel prize! I also don't want to tell my lab members that I "failed".

So this whole process is more about self-esteem to me and narcissism than it is about fear of not knowing what to do with my life. In college, I thought that not getting into med/law/grad school would mean I somehow vanish into thin air. Now, I realize there is a thing called a job and bills. Not getting in won't kill me, but it sure will hurt my sense of pride. From reading everyone else's responses, it seems that is the most fundamental fear...the fear of failing. Doesn't matter failing at what- it is just the fear that you actually TRIED and you're still not good enough.

Note: how many people in these forums actually "own up" to a poor GPA or poor GRE? Most people have an excuse like they didn't study enough, or that math was never their strong suit, or they somehow got screwed over. We don't have that luxury in graduate school applications. There is no excuse here other than you're just not good enough for the program.

Neither. I don't know what percentile a 3.0 is, but I have heard that the AW score really doesn't matter. If you want, send in a writing sample that you feel better reflects your writing abilities. Do not explain any of the things you mentioned, you are just planting ideas in their heads that they probably otherwise wouldn't even have. Also, as an aside, I like how you're discrediting the GRE in some ways (not being able to adjust to their style...?) for the AW and verbal, but seems to perfectly accept the ETS' (positive) assignment of your math skills.

I've been contacting professors since mid August, and the latest email was sent out last week and I've gotten replies back from all but one of them saying they are either planning on taking students or definitely taking students. Some professors even go so far as to give me the link to various programs and Universities (one had changed institutions).

So whoever told you now is a bad time to contact professors may or may not be correct, but the worse that could happen is they do not reply back. The best that could happen is they get interested in you, or tell you they're not taking students so you don't waste your money applying.

Note: Yes, I realize the poor grammar in my post.

Seriously, was it necessary to write a whole paragraph recalling your high school writing skills and how that's not reflected in the "subjectively graded portion" of your gre? Apparently, your AP English Composition teacher's subjective opinion of you differs from those of the people (and computer) who graded your AWA portion.

I'm not sure if you've worked with grad students before, but your attitude is going to get crushed in grad school.

Sorry for the LONGG post, feel free to skip around haha.
Okay, so this question has been bothering me for the last year or so. I'm currently a post-bachelors research assistant at a relatively big psychology lab. When I first started, there was only 1 grad student, and no RA (I don't think we had the money to afford both). The grad student did pretty much everything, from setting up for experiments, to recruiting subjects, to reading papers and attending conferences. The only problem is that he did everything half-assed, and created more of a headache for the lab than actually getting work done. That's when I came in, started volunteering there and got "trained" to do typical RA things (I think, this is my first human subjects lab, so I don't know). So, at first what I did is set up for experiments, recruit subjects, conduct interviews, data entry, post-data collection analysis/cleaning. THEN eventually, when the grad student left the lab, I also took over what I thought were his roles- managing undergrad students, training new people, being in charge of mini-projects (not experiments) here and there, literature search, and trying to kind of do some data analysis for a paper (which went nowhere since results were not interesting).

I thought that many of my responsibilities are also shared by grad students, ESPECIALLY managing the undergrads. But as of now (a year after), I feel like I'm doing everything and anything. I'm completely fine with this, since it's good for the rec letter and I'm gaining a lot from it. However, I'm not the type of person who will do other people's work without reward. If it's MY job, I'll be glad to do it, but if it's some other person's, no way am I that nice. The grad students in the lab always act like they're so "busy" and walk around as if they're so important, but in reality, they don't know anything about the experiment we're running. They don't know anything about the students, or what to do with them. When I'm not there, the students basically sit there and do their homework. I have to explain to the grad students MULTIPLE TIMES about background info on the experiment, and what is going on. Now, these are Ph.D. track and Psy.D. track students. It seems like all they do is try to write papers (I'm not sure how since they don't even know what the experiment consists of) and doing their own coursework in the lab.

Sorry for the long post, but is this normal? I'm getting peeved about this because I was told that they SHOULD get involved with the experiments as much as they can, since they're ultimately going to need to write papers on it. I have to make appointments with them in order to show them how to do something (one of the grad student joined us half a year ago, another has been there before me), and when I do, they seem so disinterested and bored. They think that everything I'm showing them is tedious (which it can be, but it needs to get done) and don't seem to care. One even had the audacity to tell me that "time is precious" and he doesn't want to sit down and learn something again for 2 hours and he's "already behind on things". [This is AFTER me taking out an hour to explain something to him that should've taken only 10 minutes. While I was explaining things, he just stared at the computer screen, and then at the end said that I needed to explain it again cus he didn't get any of it....I didn't realize that training someone required spoon feeding him, and taking notes for him also. He acted as if it was my pleasure to sit there with him or something.] I can't imagine what he's behind on except coursework (not part of the lab) since he doesn't even do much with the lab itself (other than paper and conference I think). While on my end, I'm literally running around all day at work, getting things done. I would love to write papers too, but I have no time because everything else takes up all day. Now if you're thinking that I don't have as much training as them in order to write papers, I'd disagree. This is my 3rd lab, and I have a BA, just as the first year Ph.D. student does. The only difference between me and him is that I haven't applied yet to grad school.

So, what is your experience, does this sound like I'm doing 3 people's work, or are grad students basically there to look smart and write papers? I want to bring this up to the PI but don't want to seem petty.

Absolutely agree with this. Unfortunately (or fortunately, however you want to look at it), this is in the ideal situation. In most normal situations, people dedicate at least 2 months time to study for the test, and possibly thousands of dollars in test prep. companies. GENERALLY, scoring high on the verbal means you're well-read and have a broad vocabulary, but in some extreme cases, it simply means you sat there for hours memorizing thousands of words. I have honestly read about 3 novels in the past 5 years (and I didn't even finish 2 of them ), and my vocabulary is mediocre at best. I memorized 3000+ words and took the test and scored in the (insert high number) percentile for verbal. On the other hand, someone who loves to read may score the same thing without ever actually having to memorize anything. Is this fair, and does it REALLY measure how "well-read" you are? Barely. But that's the flaw of this exam, that everyone knows what's on it, how to study for it. The only difference is whether someone is WILLING to study.

To me, if anything, the GRE measures how hard you're willing to work. I truly believe that if you're willing to work hard enough, anyone can ace the GRE. Although this is in no way measuring intelligence, but it does separate the overachiever from the normal students. If I were an adcom, I'd much rather take a hard-working moderately intelligent student than a lazy, nonchalant genius.

Seriously, was it necessary to write a whole paragraph recalling your high school writing skills and how that's not reflected in the "subjectively graded portion" of your gre? Apparently, your AP English Composition teacher's subjective opinion of you differs from those of the people (and computer) who graded your AWA portion.

I'm not sure if you've worked with grad students before, but your attitude is going to get crushed in grad school.

Seriously, was it necessary to write a whole paragraph recalling your high school writing skills and how that's not reflected in the "subjectively graded portion" of your gre? Apparently, your AP English Composition teacher's subjective opinion of you differs from those of the people (and computer) who graded your AWA portion.

I'm not sure if you've worked with grad students before, but your attitude is going to get crushed in grad school.

Seriously, was it necessary to write a whole paragraph recalling your high school writing skills and how that's not reflected in the "subjectively graded portion" of your gre? Apparently, your AP English Composition teacher's subjective opinion of you differs from those of the people (and computer) who graded your AWA portion.

I'm not sure if you've worked with grad students before, but your attitude is going to get crushed in grad school.

Seriously, was it necessary to write a whole paragraph recalling your high school writing skills and how that's not reflected in the "subjectively graded portion" of your gre? Apparently, your AP English Composition teacher's subjective opinion of you differs from those of the people (and computer) who graded your AWA portion.

I'm not sure if you've worked with grad students before, but your attitude is going to get crushed in grad school.

Seriously, was it necessary to write a whole paragraph recalling your high school writing skills and how that's not reflected in the "subjectively graded portion" of your gre? Apparently, your AP English Composition teacher's subjective opinion of you differs from those of the people (and computer) who graded your AWA portion.

I'm not sure if you've worked with grad students before, but your attitude is going to get crushed in grad school.

Seriously, was it necessary to write a whole paragraph recalling your high school writing skills and how that's not reflected in the "subjectively graded portion" of your gre? Apparently, your AP English Composition teacher's subjective opinion of you differs from those of the people (and computer) who graded your AWA portion.

I'm not sure if you've worked with grad students before, but your attitude is going to get crushed in grad school.

Sorry for the LONGG post, feel free to skip around haha.
Okay, so this question has been bothering me for the last year or so. I'm currently a post-bachelors research assistant at a relatively big psychology lab. When I first started, there was only 1 grad student, and no RA (I don't think we had the money to afford both). The grad student did pretty much everything, from setting up for experiments, to recruiting subjects, to reading papers and attending conferences. The only problem is that he did everything half-assed, and created more of a headache for the lab than actually getting work done. That's when I came in, started volunteering there and got "trained" to do typical RA things (I think, this is my first human subjects lab, so I don't know). So, at first what I did is set up for experiments, recruit subjects, conduct interviews, data entry, post-data collection analysis/cleaning. THEN eventually, when the grad student left the lab, I also took over what I thought were his roles- managing undergrad students, training new people, being in charge of mini-projects (not experiments) here and there, literature search, and trying to kind of do some data analysis for a paper (which went nowhere since results were not interesting).

I thought that many of my responsibilities are also shared by grad students, ESPECIALLY managing the undergrads. But as of now (a year after), I feel like I'm doing everything and anything. I'm completely fine with this, since it's good for the rec letter and I'm gaining a lot from it. However, I'm not the type of person who will do other people's work without reward. If it's MY job, I'll be glad to do it, but if it's some other person's, no way am I that nice. The grad students in the lab always act like they're so "busy" and walk around as if they're so important, but in reality, they don't know anything about the experiment we're running. They don't know anything about the students, or what to do with them. When I'm not there, the students basically sit there and do their homework. I have to explain to the grad students MULTIPLE TIMES about background info on the experiment, and what is going on. Now, these are Ph.D. track and Psy.D. track students. It seems like all they do is try to write papers (I'm not sure how since they don't even know what the experiment consists of) and doing their own coursework in the lab.

Sorry for the long post, but is this normal? I'm getting peeved about this because I was told that they SHOULD get involved with the experiments as much as they can, since they're ultimately going to need to write papers on it. I have to make appointments with them in order to show them how to do something (one of the grad student joined us half a year ago, another has been there before me), and when I do, they seem so disinterested and bored. They think that everything I'm showing them is tedious (which it can be, but it needs to get done) and don't seem to care. One even had the audacity to tell me that "time is precious" and he doesn't want to sit down and learn something again for 2 hours and he's "already behind on things". [This is AFTER me taking out an hour to explain something to him that should've taken only 10 minutes. While I was explaining things, he just stared at the computer screen, and then at the end said that I needed to explain it again cus he didn't get any of it....I didn't realize that training someone required spoon feeding him, and taking notes for him also. He acted as if it was my pleasure to sit there with him or something.] I can't imagine what he's behind on except coursework (not part of the lab) since he doesn't even do much with the lab itself (other than paper and conference I think). While on my end, I'm literally running around all day at work, getting things done. I would love to write papers too, but I have no time because everything else takes up all day. Now if you're thinking that I don't have as much training as them in order to write papers, I'd disagree. This is my 3rd lab, and I have a BA, just as the first year Ph.D. student does. The only difference between me and him is that I haven't applied yet to grad school.

So, what is your experience, does this sound like I'm doing 3 people's work, or are grad students basically there to look smart and write papers? I want to bring this up to the PI but don't want to seem petty.

Wow...you're kidding, right?

I'm currently working at a lab where we get applications almost every week. I spent the last 3 hours just wading through applications, replying, and trying to weed out the ones we don't want. Although I'm no where near qualified to predict your chances, or what graduate schools are looking for, I think I can give some personal insight. A lot of people tend to worry that 4.0 GPA and 1600 (or near that) GRE isn't enough. We don't know what the adcoms are looking for, and feel like we need to cure cancer or discover some lost tribe in order to even be considered. Well, after bulging my eyes out in the last year looking at undergraduate applicants applying to this lab, I can honestly say that numbers are not everything. In fact, they don't indicate too much. When I first started looking at applicants, if they had a 3.6+ GPA and seemed to have reasonable writing skills, I would jump up and down and ask them for an interview. Flash forward a year, now if an applicant has a near perfect GPA and perfect writing skills, I'm actually more leery of him/her. It's ironic, yes, but that's what experience has taught me. Again, looking at undergraduate lab applicants is definitely not the same as working in a grad school committee, but I would imagine some of the basics are the same.

1. Almost all of the "near perfect record" students that we took ended up being mindless robots. They are here to try to get to medical school, with no real passion for the experiments, and only do exactly what they are told. I often spend MORE time explaining something to them than if I were to go ahead and do it myself. Sure, they get straight A's, but they don't "think outside the box". If I tell them do A, then B, then C, they balk once they see some pattern that's not similar. As for me, when I first started, I was given half-assed instructions ONCE. They teach something to me once (often leaving out essential things that I later get burned for) and it's on my own. With some of these students, I spend hours teaching them the same thing over and over again. I'm sure grad school don't want these straight A bobble heads.

2. Although high GPA doesn't guarantee you're awesome, a low GPA almost certainly means you're out. We've made 2 exceptions with low GPA's (less than 2.5 overall, less than 3.0 in major). One exception was because she had work experience very similar to the skills we look for here in the lab. Another exception is because he presented him application so well I didn't have the heart to reject him (without talking to him first). But still, with a low GPA, we (myself and my PI who is also on a grad committee) question why can't they at least get a B in something they want to spend their life doing?

3. Your writing matters- A LOT, even more than GPA sometimes. I've seen applicants who sounded as if it was OUR pleasure to have him in the lab. I've also seen applicants who don't capitalize their I's, or write as if they're in 3rd grade. I would imagine the same thing for graduate/undergrad school. If you're a 4.0 student, but your personal statement/essays look like they went through a translation service, it's not going to get you in.

4. Your enthusiasm and uniqueness matters. After looking through 5 emails all saying the same exact thing, (now multiply that by 20 for grad school), having an applicant who sounds genuine and enthusiastic can make all the difference. Thus, cliche as it is, being yourself is actually very important.

5. Finally, the way you present yourself is very important- thus the interview. We took a student mostly because of her GPA and her work hours, but one of our lab members noted that she didn't even know the basics of what she's studying. How can you be a 3rd year XYZ major without even know XYZ 101. She was titled "the power applicant" before her interview. Needless to say, I don't expect much from her.

SOOOO sorry for the long post, this is MY opinion on why GPA and GRE and numbers don't always get you in. Many of these things I learned from my PI also, and I know he shares a similar point of view. As students (I'm a hopeful applicant myself), if we have high GPA or GRE, we complain about why they can't seem to guarantee admission. Maybe try to take a step back and put ourselves in the admission people's shoes. I mean I'm bitter because I spent days training one student only to have her leave us after 2 semesters (when she said she'd stay for at least 4). Imagine how a graduate school would feel after training you for years, only to realize you're nothing without your transcript or GRE report. They invest time and money on students, they HAVE to look beyond what's on paper.

Hah, telling yourself "I'm going to get a 1600" and then sit on your ass all day sure won't make it come true, now would it? What I meant was having those phrases was a motivation. I didn't reach my goal just by repeating those phrases while I ignored my classes. When I woke up at 2 a.m. to study, those words kept me going. No one is going to be able to tell you a "method," you just have to make your own.

What kind of exam are you taking with 4 questions in one hour?! Which program is this? If my experience is typical, you should be able to solve the problems on the actual exam in no more than 2 minutes. The questions on the exam isn't any more about precision than knowing your times table and knowing how to add. You need to be able to recognize basic math concepts in a matter of seconds if you want to do well. I don't know what program it is that you're referring to, but if it's 4 questions in an hour, it may seem like you're heading in the wrong direction. As far as shortcuts, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean math shortcuts, or shortcuts to problems?

In any case, my advice for you is to stop complaining and do something about it. Your tone sounds like "wahh I don't know how to get past my anxiety, someone tell me how." Well unfortunately, no one can.

I'm currently working at a lab where we get applications almost every week. I spent the last 3 hours just wading through applications, replying, and trying to weed out the ones we don't want. Although I'm no where near qualified to predict your chances, or what graduate schools are looking for, I think I can give some personal insight. A lot of people tend to worry that 4.0 GPA and 1600 (or near that) GRE isn't enough. We don't know what the adcoms are looking for, and feel like we need to cure cancer or discover some lost tribe in order to even be considered. Well, after bulging my eyes out in the last year looking at undergraduate applicants applying to this lab, I can honestly say that numbers are not everything. In fact, they don't indicate too much. When I first started looking at applicants, if they had a 3.6+ GPA and seemed to have reasonable writing skills, I would jump up and down and ask them for an interview. Flash forward a year, now if an applicant has a near perfect GPA and perfect writing skills, I'm actually more leery of him/her. It's ironic, yes, but that's what experience has taught me. Again, looking at undergraduate lab applicants is definitely not the same as working in a grad school committee, but I would imagine some of the basics are the same.

1. Almost all of the "near perfect record" students that we took ended up being mindless robots. They are here to try to get to medical school, with no real passion for the experiments, and only do exactly what they are told. I often spend MORE time explaining something to them than if I were to go ahead and do it myself. Sure, they get straight A's, but they don't "think outside the box". If I tell them do A, then B, then C, they balk once they see some pattern that's not similar. As for me, when I first started, I was given half-assed instructions ONCE. They teach something to me once (often leaving out essential things that I later get burned for) and it's on my own. With some of these students, I spend hours teaching them the same thing over and over again. I'm sure grad school don't want these straight A bobble heads.

2. Although high GPA doesn't guarantee you're awesome, a low GPA almost certainly means you're out. We've made 2 exceptions with low GPA's (less than 2.5 overall, less than 3.0 in major). One exception was because she had work experience very similar to the skills we look for here in the lab. Another exception is because he presented him application so well I didn't have the heart to reject him (without talking to him first). But still, with a low GPA, we (myself and my PI who is also on a grad committee) question why can't they at least get a B in something they want to spend their life doing?

3. Your writing matters- A LOT, even more than GPA sometimes. I've seen applicants who sounded as if it was OUR pleasure to have him in the lab. I've also seen applicants who don't capitalize their I's, or write as if they're in 3rd grade. I would imagine the same thing for graduate/undergrad school. If you're a 4.0 student, but your personal statement/essays look like they went through a translation service, it's not going to get you in.

4. Your enthusiasm and uniqueness matters. After looking through 5 emails all saying the same exact thing, (now multiply that by 20 for grad school), having an applicant who sounds genuine and enthusiastic can make all the difference. Thus, cliche as it is, being yourself is actually very important.

5. Finally, the way you present yourself is very important- thus the interview. We took a student mostly because of her GPA and her work hours, but one of our lab members noted that she didn't even know the basics of what she's studying. How can you be a 3rd year XYZ major without even know XYZ 101. She was titled "the power applicant" before her interview. Needless to say, I don't expect much from her.

SOOOO sorry for the long post, this is MY opinion on why GPA and GRE and numbers don't always get you in. Many of these things I learned from my PI also, and I know he shares a similar point of view. As students (I'm a hopeful applicant myself), if we have high GPA or GRE, we complain about why they can't seem to guarantee admission. Maybe try to take a step back and put ourselves in the admission people's shoes. I mean I'm bitter because I spent days training one student only to have her leave us after 2 semesters (when she said she'd stay for at least 4). Imagine how a graduate school would feel after training you for years, only to realize you're nothing without your transcript or GRE report. They invest time and money on students, they HAVE to look beyond what's on paper.