socialpsych

Please take my interpretations with a grain of salt: Very good sign but not guaranteeing anything. Pretty good, but not as good as the first one. The fact that they can envision a project for you to work on is necessary but not sufficient for wanting to actually give you an offer. This is actually the best one you posted, I think. I would trust the 90% figure over my experience, but I have never heard of anyone being recommended to a grad division that is larger than the department and not getting the offer. Especially if your profile also makes you a good candidate for a university fellowship. Best of luck!

I'm doing pretty much exactly what I wrote in my SOP. But several of my peers are doing slightly different things, and one is doing something completely unrelated. IMO, there are two things you need to accomplish with your description of your interests in your SOP: (1) demonstrate that you can talk intelligently about psychology and know what interesting research questions look like, and (2) get matched with the right advisor (also demonstrate fit with schools, etc). Once you have an offer to work with a person whose interests are at least compatible with yours, I don't think anyone will hold you to what you wrote about in your SOP.

Just from hearing people talk about it. I was first exposed to it as conventional wisdom among applicants, but I have heard it from people who actually work in admissions too. Feel free to take with a grain of salt though.

Is 30 too late to start a PhD?-- absolutely not. And it is not too late to get in to a top program, either. Will your age put you at a disadvantage in the admissions process relative to people in their early to mid 20s?-- sadly, it could. Don't be scared of this; just be prepared. Remember that, depending on your field, what they are looking for is "safe bet" students who are likely to survive the program and succeed on the job market, so to the extent that you can use your experience and maturity to make yourself seem like one of those, I don't think your age has to hurt you.

One person I know just heard from UVA. Good luck everyone.

I don't know where you applied, but it seems really early for calls from business school programs. Relax...you have a while to go!

Well, I am pretty sure I remember Stanford interviewing last year...and I would take your word over my own except that there is also an entry in the results listing to back me up.

Stanford, Princeton, and WUSTL all interview; I am not sure about the others. You yourself linked to the results database, I believe. Isn't the info in there?

I think you would also need to know the percentage of applicants who are undergrads vs. taking time off...even if 60% of admits are straight from undergrad, that doesn't mean it is easy to get in as an undergrad if 90% of applicants are undergrads. Not saying that these stats are remotely true; just using this as an example. In reality, though, I would guess that significantly more than 50% of applicants are undergrads.

The issue is less the value of your transcript than the extra research experience you have likely missed out on. Many applicants are coming from post-baccalaureate research positions, assistantships, or lab manager jobs where they have been working on research full time and can get extremely positive letters of recommendation. If your research experience is really that good, then I don't think being a senior puts you at much of a disadvantage (maybe very slightly if it makes you seem less mature compared to post-bac applicants), but it would be difficult to have research experience that is that good. That said, many people do apply as seniors and get offers. Best of luck!

This is definitely true, and it will be a struggle if you end up in a program whose culture doesn't match your preferred life balance. Current students tend to be a good source for this sort of information.

I think if you want to create balance in your life, you can (at least in psych and similar programs). I was already with my SO before I started the program, but the majority of other students in my program have dated actively at some point in the program and eventually met a long-term partner. So, whether you are just looking to mingle or prefer to start a serious relationship, I believe you can make time in grad school if it is important enough to you.

This is exactly the thing I was going to comment on, OP. The way you talk about this in your post, it sounds like this is what you think you'd be doing: essentially using these experiences, and these profs, to get yourself in to grad school. Okay, that was a slightly crude way of putting it, but I hope you see what I mean. If that is the attitude you actually have (and I'm not saying it is), then I think it will be obvious to any profs you try to form a relationship with, and it might compromise your relationship. However, think about it another way. Why do you need letters of rec in order to get in to grad school? To put it crudely again: to show, based on the word of someone adcoms see as more reliable and trustworthy than you, that you know what you're getting into and that you are talented enough to take it on. The reason they see profs as more reliable and trustworthy than you is partly that they simply have a good reputation that you don't, but partly also that they know what they're talking about through their experience in the field, in a way that you, given your lack of experience, don't. If you haven't spoken with professors about your career choice, how do you know that it is the right career choice for you? (I am asking rhetorically.) And how do you know that your work is really good enough, not just to get an undergrad A, but to qualify you for grad school? If you approach taking more classes and getting to know profs as a way of answering these questions, I think profs will be much more respectful, open to making a connection, and likely to have a positive impression of you. Everyone loves talking about their job, and everyone also loves a person with enough respect for its challenges to wonder whether they have what it takes. It can just seem like a more humble and respectful angle than "There, I came to your office hours, now please write me a letter." (Which is not what I am accusing you of having said!) Once again, please do not take this post as rebuking or condescending. I guess it seemed like a point worth making even if it is just responding to a caricatured version of your post, because it is something I have seen a few other applicants struggle with. I think seeming to have the right attitude toward the field is extremely important throughout the application process, and an aspect that isn't always mentioned explicitly. Also, I have assumed that you are thinking of applying for a PhD -- a Master's may be an entirely different game.

I was going to say that I don't think that particular point of his is necessarily true. I personally am getting more exercise now than I ever have in my life. I find that the freedom to set my own hours and have a more or less regular work flow means that I am rarely in a position where I really can't spare the time. And, since I can no longer rely on external incentives, I find that keeping myself healthy and happy is more important than ever before for staying productive. If I reduce my activity level, I start to feel physically off, my sleep schedule changes, and as a result it becomes harder to focus and do good work. In undergrad, I was generally working toward deadlines so it didn't matter as much, because I could use the deadlines to keep my focus even if I didn't feel great all the time. It's just like what he said about all-nighters: being at your best matters more in grad school, so I find it really important to take the time to make sure I am at my best. Also extremely important is the fact that other students in my program are very physically active and one of them is often my gym buddy. That is another thing I would add to his list: make sure to associate with and befriend people who have a healthy attitude toward grad school and who take care of themselves, and let them rub off on you. You will be able to maintain your own good habits with a minimum of effort.

I am guessing it depends on whether she is interested in a PhD or a master's degree. Either way, she should talk to her professors about how to get her CV in shape for grad admissions. We might be able to give advice, but profs can both give (probably better) advice AND write letters of rec down the road, so that is a much more productive way to go.

This is simply untrue. Take a look at the OB/management and orgs faculty at schools like Stanford, Chicago, Kellogg, Duke. PLENTY of psych PhDs -- probably the majority of the faculty at some of these schools.

Nope, this is what everyone does. You have each professor write you one letter for each school. Not a problem. And it is thoughtful of you to wonder about whether there is a limit, but I have never heard of anything like that, and 7 is definitely a reasomable number.

I didn't look into I/O programs at all myself, but I can try to answer your questions below with respect to social vs. OB. Take this with a grain of salt, but the one thing I heard about I/O is that it's not as "current" a field as OB -- that the field of social psych (especially applied to organizations, but also basic research) is moving more and more into OB departments. But I'm sure others will be able to advise you better. You may also want to look at marketing programs -- less so for the "working in groups" stuff, but a lot of decision making work is now done in marketing departments. Or, if you think OB is a better fit, you could always look for programs where research collaborations with marketing profs are also possible. Yes, social is generally harder than OB (at least at the level of top programs in both fields). Depends on the OB program. The ones that are most similar to psych are the ones that (1) are more basic (as opposed to applied) and (2) have a clear separation between micro and macro levels of OB. Also, social psych programs are definitely very basic-oriented. At some OB programs (not all!) it might hurt you to say that you are not interested in field work, but at social programs it will DEFINITELY hurt you to sound too applied, or even to mention that you are also applying to OB or I/O. Along the same lines, any background having to do with business (either coursework/research or industry experience) will look much better on an OB application than a social psych one, as you might imagine. I think being light on psych research experience will be equally bad for you at both types of programs. Therefore, it might be less of a problem for OB just because those programs are sometimes less competitive. Either way, your lab manager job is not totally worthless -- be explicit about anything your current job has in common with psych research. And if you don't know, it might be worth sitting down with a psych grad student and just comparing notes on what your daily schedules are generally like. I'm sure you will find commonalities. In academia, social psych translates better into an OB job than an OB degree translates into a psych job, though both are possible. Both are also more difficult than just having the degree in the appropriate field in the first place: social psych PhDs more often end up getting OB postdocs to help them transition into business school settings, which is not as necessary for OB PhDs who already have experience teaching MBA courses. So, in terms of flexibility within academia, social psych will serve you better (though both grad stipends and professor salaries are often lower in psych departments than in business schools, if that matters to you!). Outside academia, my guess is just that they lead to different things -- for example, I know someone who is going into an analyst type job in an HR department, which seems like a job where an OB degree would be better than a psych degree. I'm guessing an OB degree is better received in jobs focused on management and organizational functioning whereas a social psych degree is better for non-management-related jobs. But I'm totally guessing based on the little I know about the experiences of recent grads from my own program (I know virtually nothing about industry job prospects for social psych PhDs). Would be happy to talk more about this via PM if you have questions that seem too specific for the board. Best of luck!

Totally depends on the field and the program. There are some fields/programs where, from what I've heard, you are virtually required to say you want to end up in academia -- it's not even good to imply that you aren't sure. Other programs (my sense is that this is more likely in bioengineering than in sociology) don't really care for one reason or another. Why do some programs have such a preference for aspiring academics? Sometimes it's because the programs are focused on training academic researchers, and placing graduates into respected academic positions is part of their reputation. PhD funding and mentorship is a big investment in a student, and while of course they want you to do whatever makes you happy, part of what makes that investment worthwhile is having you land in a great academic job. Another reason not to accept those who don't want to go into academia is that sometimes the PhD degree is only right for those interested in academia. This is the case in my field. Some people apply to PhD programs in business thinking the PhD will be something like an expanded MBA, but in fact it has nothing to do with the MBA. It is just not worth spending so many years of effort and living on a grad student stipend for someone who knows from the start that they have no chance of going into academia. Programs know that anyone who enters the program with no intention of becoming an academic will soon realize this and drop out, so it is better for everyone if such applicants are not accepted. So, if you are sure you have no interest in academia, first ask around in your field to see whether saying that in your SOP would be a liability for you; and if so, ask yourself whether it is possible that the PhD may not be the right degree for you. Maybe there is some kind of master's that will serve you better. If not, perhaps it is just that the programs like to place graduates in academic jobs, in which case you should ask yourself whether you are willing to let down a program that has invested so much in you. (Some such programs have a culture that is somewhat unsympathetic to leaving academia, so attending such a program may not be right for you, either.) The answer could still be that it is worthwhile for you to apply to such programs, in which case you will simply need to lie in order to get in. If you are not sure whether you want to go into academia or not -- I know this doesn't apply to the OP, but just for future applicants who might look at this thread -- just say you do. As you know, the only way you could possibly get an academic job is a PhD, and if the only way you can get a PhD is to overstate your confidence that you want to become a professor, then do it. Also, it happens all the time, and even profs often understand that you might want to check out other job options while you are working toward your degree. It is healthy to make sure you are doing what is really best for you. But I think for someone who really has ZERO interest in academia, but who needs to straight-up lie about that in order to get in to programs, it is important to understand the reasons for the mismatch and make sure that a PhD is really the best thing given your interests. Again, it might be; but treat the mismatch as an opportunity to double check.

Are you sure that you need a PhD? Since you do not plan to go into academia, why wouldn't some kind of master's suffice? It may be totally different in quantitative fields, but in my field a PhD really only makes sense for someone who at least might consider continuing with research. It is often a very demanding degree in terms of time, effort, and opportunity cost. I'm sure you have thought this through relative to the work you would like to do after your degree, but just thought I'd ask in case you haven't thought about it.

If you have already had exposure to marketing and know what you want to study, I think a research-focused master's would be much better than an MBA. The MBA is not at all a prerequisite to the PhD. They are simply different kinds of degrees: the MBA is general and practice-oriented, and the PhD is specific and research-oriented. If your ultimate goal is to go into academia, I think an MBA would be a waste of time. For what it's worth, a conversation on this very topic has been going on for a while over at TestMagic. Good luck!

It is not turning up your nose; it is a cost-benefit analysis. Attending the conference results in a respectable publication, which is useful to you; the question, given how much it would cost, is how useful. It might be worth your time, but not worth your time + thousands of dollars. Since you are surprised by our reactions, isn't there an academic in your field that you could ask for advice? Maybe one of your letter-writers? Take their word over ours.

First, assuming it turns out that this Inter-Disciplinary.Net thing is not a well respected society in your field (which to me sounds more than likely -- in fact it almost seems like it might be a scam), I don't think a conference run by a group that has no status in your field is worth paying any money to attend. Honestly, I think it will not help your CV even one bit, because your eagerness to present your research (+) will be balanced out by the fact that you chose to attend a crummy conference (-). This could be totally different in the humanities, but in my field I can think of only a handful of conferences I would encourage prospective students to attend. Second, even if the conference turns out to be a really legit one, I don't think it is worth spending a couple thousand dollars to go. It's not that important to your CV, and having attended a couple conferences now myself, I can tell you that the experience, though extremely stimulating, is also exhausting. So I don't think it is worth spending that money either for the fun of attending a conference or for the usefulness of having it on your resume.

I have never ordered business cards (and I don't think my program provides them), but I may start doing so toward the end of my program -- especially at conferences and situations like that, where I've heard it can be useful.

Those are great questions. Now that I know a bit more about grad school, I'm trying to think of other things that might be important but that people might not think to ask... Advisor questions: - How often do you meet with your advisor? Is your advisor fairly accessible to you? - Do you publish together with your advisor? Do you get to be first author? - Do you work primarily with one person or can you work with multiple people? - In case of an unforeseeable personality mismatch, is it possible to switch advisors? Do people ever do that? - Are there any PhD research seminars/workshops that are focused on explicitly giving you research skills, or do you primarily learn by doing? (if applicable:) - Are there opportunities to collaborate with faculty in other programs/departments? Funding questions: - Where does research funding come from? What grants (if any) do students apply for? Are they generally successful? Does it ever feel like your research is limited by the amount of funding you have available (rather than how much research you can or choose to take on)? - Is your funding tied to your advisor or does it come from the department/program, or from the school? - Do you spend a lot of time worrying about/searching for/applying for funding? - Is your stipend sufficient to live in the city where campus is located? (I think I avoided asking this as an applicant because I thought it would be awkward, but a few applicants have asked me now that I'm a grad student, and it's totally fine) - How long does it typically take to finish the program? If longer than the guaranteed funding, where does your funding come from? Location questions: What's the city/town like? safe? fun? expensive? Where do students typically live? Do you feel stressed about finding a job after graduation? What is the hardest part of grad school for you? Is there a particular type of student who does well in this program? A particular type who does poorly? What percentage of students leave the program, and why? Family/lifestyle questions (if applicable): Are there students in the program who have kids? Do the faculty understand and support family obligations? Is the atmosphere generally family-friendly? ...I could probably think of more, haha.