cogneuroforfun

Look at it this way: you want to be taught as an undergrad by professors, taught as a graduate student by those same professors, and then respected as an equal colleague... by those same professors? As far as I can tell, that is where the majority of the stigma and distaste for staying in the same place too long comes from. Its bad enough if you are an undergraduate in a lab and then want to continue as a PhD student in the same or similar lab. How are the other graduate students, who knew you as an undergrad and were probably your most immediate supervisor, going to adjust to you being their intellectual equal all of a sudden? I think that is even more pronounced going from PhD student to faculty member; how will fellow professors react when you are someone they advised and taught is now suddenly their equal professionally? In fields where postdocs are common (or at least my field!), its not even kosher to do your postdoc where you get your first professor gig, for this very reason. And its not that anyone is condescending or haughty or anything, just that it is tough to look at someone who was your student one day and then your co-worker and equal the next and not treat them differently or have some holdover from when they were student.

The only reason I think to take the MS option is if a) you can easily afford it and you have a burning desire to be a prestigious researcher in academia. In that case, you could do the MS at a school ranked in the 50s, do amazingly well, and apply to (much) better ranked PhD programs when you finish the MS. If you really want to be a professor at a prestigious university, I think you would be handicapping yourself from the start if you attend a PhD program so poorly ranked. Its not that rank means too much, but in general that means less resources, fewer opportunities, and possibly some prejudice against you by future academic employers. If your aspirations are something like that, I think you would be doing yourself a favor by doing everything you can to shine at an MS and then reapplying for better ranked PhD programs later.

Its not my specialty so I don't know any specifics, but several psychology professors at the University of Arizona have mentioned that our Psychology, Policy, and Law track in the psychology department is particularly strong. Its certainly worth a look, as the department, university, and Tucson are all quite nice!

Fit with faculty and whether faculty are accepting students are completely within your control! The easy one first: email prospective advisors and ask if they're taking students. Why would you pay $50-$120 to apply without even knowing if the one lab you want to work in has room? Funding goes along with this: if the advisor says there is room, that almost certainly means there will be funding. If there isn't room, don't apply! Problem solved Fit is a little more complicated, but is even more under your control. You need to research what faculty are doing and make sure not only that you are interested in their work but that you have shown that concretely through your research experience, coursework, etc. That obviously takes time, but showing you will be a good fit will overcome average GPA or GRE scores. Only apply to schools where there are professors doing work that you want to do, and that will make sure you have a good fit with all your potential programs. All you have to do is research the places you are applying to. Don't fire off an application to Stanford just because its Stanford You have to make sure there is a good fit for you at each of your possible programs, then ask the potential advisor (or two) at each program about space in their lab. That is an excellent way of at least getting them to look at your app (because you've already made contact and made a good impression) and will also show you are genuinely interested in their specific work and specific lab. It will also keep you from applying to places where there isn't room and there isn't a good research fit. Sorry for that little rant, but I think good research fit and contact with faculty before applying are amazingly helpful and definitely helped me get some positive responses to my applications.

I think it is possible, but highly unlikely. My current advisor (cognitive neuroscience, in psychology department) actually had a TT job lined up when he got his PhD in 2001, but took a 2 year postdoc and deferred starting until 2003. So I'm not always exactly sure what the motivation is, other than having those 1 or 2 years to just do research without all the teaching and bureaucracy of a professorship getting in the way. That could certainly have been his motivation. Also, I think it used to be more common to be able to find a decent professor position without a postdoc, whereas now postdocs are more necessary, if just to separate yourself from the other applicants for that position. The grad students who I know that are close to finishing (3 of them) are all clinical/neuro and are all planning on postdocs or more specialized positions before applying for professorships. Hopefully someone else has more concrete info or advice, beyond anecdotal evidence!

Just to emphasize what the last person said, doing a postdoc IS going onto the job market. If you want a better paying, more prestigious, better location postdoc, you need to have a good publication and research record already. That 5th year might be invaluable for polishing up your dissertation, doing a review article or two with your advisor, and other things that will get you a top postdoc. And of course if you want a shot at that dream TT position, you'll need to have the connections and research that come with that top postdoc. Don't think of cutting that 5th year to do a postdoc sooner; you'll need both!

For my interview weekend, we went and saw Yale literally and figuratively beat Dartmouth. In the closing seconds, Dartmouth pulled their goalie to try to overcome a 2-1 deficit, only to have Yale break away and hit the open net. Of course a fight then ensued. It was great seeing how pumped everyone was, especially coming from a school with waning basketball and mediocre football. Now I just have to start following hockey and fencing!

GPA is a better predictor of success in grad school than GRE, although neither is very good. Honestly, OP, philosophy programs are some of the most competitive. I hate to be too much of a buzzkill, but I think your GRE is borderline for top philosophy programs and your GPA is somewhat low (but hopefully offset by your better philosophy GPA). I know writing samples and LORs are more important, but GPA/GRE need to be above a certain point to get your application a serious look. For the top programs in a super competitive field like philosophy, I'm not positive you're even going to get your application seriously considered I'm more familiar with psychology, and I know that those numbers would probably be borderline for top clinical or social psych programs. If you do an MA first, I think that will help a ton, especially if you can get ~4.0 GPA in the program. But if you don't go that route, I think you might need to apply to a couple programs outside the top 5/10 to give yourself a better chance at getting an offer from a great (but not top) program. Definitely still apply to some of those dream schools, even if you don't decide to get an MA. Next cycle is a new round and if your app was borderline this time, you might end up accepted next time

Yeah, a professor at my school who has been a reviewer before said that everybody is considering together. Undergrads do not have it any easier than current grad students.

Why do you have to ruin all our hopes and dreams? :x

Posted in the other thread too, but: If your goal is PhD, be very careful about turning down great fit/good ranked programs now in the hopes of maybe getting into the same or better ones after getting the GATech MS. You are in, now, to programs that seem quite good for you; make sure you're not going to be kicking yourself 2 or 3 years down the road because you turned down these excellent PhD offers now.

Unless you are quite certain that getting the MS would make you successful in getting into the top PhD programs, I think you should take OSU's or NU's PhD offer. Look at it like this: if your ultimate goal is a PhD, then you can get started on that now, right now, rather than 2/3 years in the future! Given your pretty niche interests, it sounds like OSU and NU are both pretty good for you. Are the higher ranked programs going to be as good or better for research fit? Consider all the uncertainty of turning own PhD offers now for an MS and just be absolutely sure you're willing to give up excellent fit and good ranked PhD programs now for the chance at higher ranked and maybe as good fit schools later (not to mention the possibility of losing funding at GATech ).

While its definitely nice to be going to a "highly ranked program," it really comes down to research: if you want infectious diseases (mmm!) and Berkeley doesn't have them, then it doesn't really matter what the rank is. People who are looking to hire you after getting your degree should (hopefully) know who the big names in the field are. If Berkeley has none and Yale has several, the "name" and reputation of going to the supposedly higher-ranked program probably won't mean much. Then again, I'm only really familiar with academia situations. It would be good to get other MPH student/prospective opinions.

The name of the degree doesn't matter. MPH in Infectious Diseases won't mean much if you'll end up doing much less research on infectious diseases! Clearly Yale is the way to go The climate difference, in weather and cities, is big, but you'll have to decide if that's important enough for you to choose the worse research fit, right? As for cost, that is definitely something to consider.

Yes it does! Do it!

Details in signature. I was *hoping* for one or two acceptances, and I feel very lucky to have gotten more.

I was at that open house It seemed like a very cool program, I hope it turns out well for you! Who will you be working with? I'm off to Yale neuroscience, and while a bunch of the other students and faculty do cellular/molecular type stuff, I will be doing firmly cognitive neuroscience.

I think programs (and PI's) might differ somewhat in this respect, but in general this isn't going to happen. You'll have some first year core courses in methods, stats, and other requirements. During that time, you'll be in your lab doing something, but I think most people start out pretty slow, especially since you might have to TA that first year in addition to take a bunch of classes. Most likely you and your PI will get together and talk about some projects you might want to do, then get a pilot study set up. That will be a great time for you to learn. Email a current student or two in your program and ask about how the workload is split up between classes, lab time, TA (If you have to) during the first semester and first year. They'll be able to tell you best!

I think clinical probably tops it, but those are definitely the two big ones, which helps explain why you guys have it so hard during admissions :|

The only thing I would caution you about is that living in LA will be much more expensive than living in Pittsburgh. So even if CMU tuition is higher, the costs might even out, or probably even be cheaper overall for CMU. If you do get funding at UCLA, though, that will of course help a lot. Sorry I can't help with your specific program.

Not having to TA for the first year is preferable. But if you will have to TA for the following years anyways, no matter where you go, I wouldn't let it change my choice much. Go where the research fits your interests the best, and think of not TAing the first year as just a nice bonus, but nothing too important! (This is assuming the amount of funding, whether its TA or fellowship, is roughly equivalent.)

Why can't you hold on to more than two offers at a time? Is that a special clinical psych stipulation or something?

UCLA Cognitive is probably done. They already had their recruitment weekend (like an interview but we were already accepted, so no pressure!). Maybe they have a waitlist though?

Congrats! Were you at the CNS interview at NYU? If that's the program you're heading to, extra congrats, it seems fantastic!

That's not what anyone is saying. If you already know what school you want, then inform the rest of them. If you don't know which one you want, then you should feel no pressure at all about taking as much time as you need. There is no reason to feel guilty about needing a lot of time to decide your future. Life very rarely throws such precise life altering decisions at you, like choosing this school or that. To rush because other people are on waitlists is just short-changing yourself. Take all the time you need. Once you have your decision, then be prompt. I'm not trying to make myself feel better, either . I was able to decide within a couple weeks of seeing my top two choices. But I made my decision once I was sure, not because other people wanted some spots I had. This in particular bothers me. This should be as long a process as anyone personally needs. You're telling someone to make a decision in an artificial time frame before they're ready? Come on. This is a huge decision, make it with care! Edit: I'm not saying keep every offer you get just because. But if you honestly cannot decide between 3, 4, or 5 schools or something, then don't feel bad. Once you know you would pick one over another for sure, then drop the worse one promptly.