LadyL

Hi everyone. I did not get an award, got only two reviews (F/F and G/G). This was my first time applying (I'm in between undergrad and grad school) so I guess I am starting from the bottom, which is ok, I have more chances! I started another thread for people who did not get an award to discuss what they plan on improving for next year:

One thing I have learned about this forum as a third time Ph.D. applicant (got in this year, thank bog) is that this forum is heavily biased towards the highest achievers. This can make it seem like everyone who applies to grad school gets in, and everyone wins a NSF GRFP or at least gets an HM. Which is so not the case, there are way more losers than winners in this game obviously. So...a toast to us slightly less high achieving folks! And let's share experiences so that we can all be stronger applicants next year, for everyone who is reapplying. Anyhow, my GRFP application got panned basically - only two reviews, reviewer #1 gave me two "fairs" and #2 gave me two "goods." It was clear that #1 was tougher than #2 from the very first line: Reviewer #1: The applicant appears to have a genuine interest a science-based career. Reviewer #2: You have a very strong background academically which promises a bright future. Note that #1 says nothing about my aptitude or qualifications, only my "interest" which sounds a little backhanded to me. I kind of had a giggle about that one . Overall their feedback was actually pretty consistent, although #1 was very objective and offered no praise at all aside from noting my publications and volunteer experience. #2 said nice things about my background as a student and volunteer, but had basically the same critiques of my proposal, which is helpful for revisions. Main critiques: 1. Expand on theoretical implications of project 2. Have a better plan for communicating my findings with the world 3. Improve quantitative skills So I plan on retooling the rationale for the project, polishing up my broader impacts, and I will be taking graduate level stats next year so that should help with the quantitative skills issue. What about you, what feedback did you get and what's your plan for next year?

I applied to both neuroscience and psychology and was notified of my admission to neuroscience in mid march, and psychology last week.

Screw the MA. Here's why: 1. In psychology MAs and research experience are often viewed equivalently. Case in point: both the research jobs I've held were "MA preferred, equivalent experience considered" and I landed both with a BA and 1 years experience in an imaging lab as an undergrad. 2. Harvard's grad programs are notoriously less competitive than their undergrad, at least from all the gossip I've heard in the field. 3. If you want to learn neuroimaging it is highly unlikely that will happen in a 1 year MA program. It took me about a year to develop the programming and statistical background necessary to analyze data. I've been at my job for almost 3 years, am on about a dozen posters and several papers, and I *still* have only about a 200 level grasp of fmri data analysis. I would say that unless you have a mentor willing to live and breathe analysis with you it will be hard/impossible to learn anything useful in a year. 4. Funding: what sort of access to fMRI data are you going to have in a 1 year MA program? Scanning is dependent on millions of dollars of grant money, and just *designing* a study can take a year. Getting handed an old data set to play with (the more likely scenario) can be fun, but teaches you nothing about study design and the practical aspects of running an imaging study. 5. On a related note, what do you plan to do in the field with an MA? You will not be able to apply for your own funding or conduct your own original research in imaging. The academic hierarchy is pretty rigid for research - Ph.D., post doc, apply for training grants, get prelim data with training grant money, apply for bigger grants, etc. Notice the prerequisite to all of this is "get a Ph.D." So my advice is to try to get a position in an imaging lab so that you can go straight into a Ph.D. program (assuming funding doesn't work out, which it still could obviously) rather than wasting a lot of money and valuable time on the MA. I think MAs are almost unethical to award in experimental psych because the grant funding structure basically doesn't recognize MA level people. It is the closest thing to a scam there is because it barely even makes you competitive for entry level jobs. Trust me, after two failed application rounds I had to face the reality that unless I got a Ph.D. I was never going to get anywhere in the field, and I wish there was more opportunity for us lowly non-ph.ds but it just doesn't work that way.

I applied to both neuro and psych programs at several schools because there was faculty overlap between those departments. One program did eventually ask me to choose one over the other but it was because they were planning on offering me admission and didn't want to compete with the other department.

I got a phone call on a Saturday morning about an acceptance.

Alex don't make me smack you over the internet. Might I remind you that many, many neuro faculty hold joint appointments in psychology departments (including at the schools that we both interviewed for). That said...clinical psych versus neuroscience are two really different paths. I cannot even imagine applying to both types of programs in the same application cycle, there are just such different goals for each. I am definitely a research person, but I do come from clinical research, and I can't imagine switching totally to molecular bio stuff and animal models. The neuro programs I picked all had human work going on. I think it would be an even bigger stretch if I actually wanted to do clinical work. I say go with your gut about what kind of career you really want. Clinical gives you more flexibility but there are more hoops to jump through with training (internship placement primarily). Would you be ok with the compromise of doing research with clinical populations? If so, and the neuro program has human work going on, that might be a good fit. If you don't feel like that's quite enough, I would either attend the clinical program or reapply next year to a wider range of clinical programs so that you get into one you like more.

Here's the deal: I have been offered admission to one of my top choice schools. The lab that is recruiting me knows I have several other offers, and has made it clear that they are willing to supplement the departmental stipend I was offered out of the PI's grant money to make their offer "more competitive." I have not talked specifics about this but they have brought it up several times. I have been trying to figure out how to say "yes, I would like more money please" and here's the draft I've come up with: As you know I am considering several funded offers from other programs. I am very interested in [your program], both for the resources within the program and also in the area due to proximity to New York City. However with those resources comes a substantially higher cost of living. I am concerned that the current stipend allotment at [your program] will lead to financial strain that will distract me from my studies. One program I am also interested in offers a stipend in the high 20s because they are also in a metropolitan area (Boston) with a higher cost of living. If the financial support from [your program] was at a similar level it would greatly help my decision making. Thoughts? Is the "financial strain" piece too whiny? Is it pushy/overly direct to mention numbers?

I will also add that on top of tuition, cost of living in Cambridge MA is very very high. I agree that you should go where the money is, it's not like it's Harvard versus Podunk Remedial Community College .

Ok, so I have official offers from 4 programs and an unofficial offer from another and am trying to figure out what my next move is. 1. Of the four programs who've made offers, I am 85% sure that I will not choose 2 of them. I know I should tell them no as soon as possible but that 15% doubt is holding me back. I know waitlisted people are waiting on my decision but I am so hesitant to close any open doors. Anyone else dealing with this sort of hesitation? 2. "Top Choice #1" is making decisions early next week. My understanding is that they had a lot of applicants in my sub-field and it was a very competitive group. I already emailed them saying I had other offers (3 at the time) but was waiting to hear from them before deciding - should I update them about the other two offers or could that be seen as pushy? 3. "Top Choice #2" admitted me and told me that they are willing to negotiate a higher stipend than the standard because I am a top recruit. Their stipend is already pretty competitive with my other current offers, so I am not sure how to negotiate this since I can't use "School X offered me way more money" as a bargaining chip. I was thinking of mentioning cost of living because it's in a more expensive urban area than some of the programs I was accepted into. I am just not sure whether I should put a number out there, or whether I should ask them to generate an offer. Any advice?

Probably too busy or rude . I don't know which CUNY campus you applied to but City College already sent out interview invites and admits, and NYU had interviews already as well. Small chance of waitlist but I would say not likely, sorry.

The funny thing is that out of laziness/because it got a good reaction I just copied and pasted my exact wording from the email I sent the other school (the one that was accommodating). But that really underscored for me that it was probably not what I said or how I said it. Also, on that interview, one person ended up having their spouse stay in their room but didn't tell the program. I don't think any fuss was made. Honestly I was kind of pissed and wanted to say something, but didn't want to A. seem like I was tattling on her and B. bring up a negative reaction that was at that point a month in the past. I am contemplating whether I should ever send the program a follow up note on the issue. As of right this minute I don't think I'm going there even if I get in so I don't think I have anything to lose. But it's also a small world in academia and I don't want any more drama.

I would look for job placement rates. In my experience, MA programs in Psychology are not worth it, but that is in reference to experimental psychology specifically. I have been offered several jobs that had previously been held by someone with an experimental MA, one of them from an Ivy, and I have a BA and work experience. I will say that I was promoted recently and I would have been able to get a cooler title if I had an MA, due to hospital requirements. However the raise that came with that promotion in no way would have justified MA level debt .

I've been rehearsing my response to a similar situation and it goes something like this: "I am really excited about the opportunities at X University, but as you probably know I am applying elsewhere and each program has a different time line. I am hoping to be able to make a decision by X date." Have you contacted the school you interviewed at a month ago to let them know about an offer? I haven't done this sort of thing but am wondering how it works. I am really hoping my options will be clear by the end of the month but am not sure how to pressure programs to decide.

I had two very different reactions when I asked about bringing my partner to interview/recruitment weekends. One program was great and booked a hotel room for both of us, invited him to all the social/more informal department events that weekend, etc. Another program reacted badly to my inquiry, saying it was "inappropriate" and a grad student even emailed me "off the record" to tell me that some faculty had objected to my request in ways this student found offensive. Needless to say after that second experience I haven't broached the issue with other schools. From the feedback I've gotten it seems I experienced two extremes of potential reactions, and that it's more common to get a reaction somewhere in the middle. I would say it's up to you as I hope my experience with the second school isn't common.

I would visit both. At one of my recent interviews there was an applicant who works in a bio lab at MIT, he said that people can be pretty intense there. But I am sure that like everywhere, this varies by program and by lab.

When I was first applying an adviser broke my heart by telling me that no one, not even her top students, had a guaranteed chance of admission because the process is so random. I learned that lesson the hard way when I didn't get in on round one OR two despite being told by lots of credible people that I was a strong candidate. Sometimes you just get stuck being that one outlier candidate who is almost OVER qualified, but doesn't get in. Last round, I was already working on a post doc level in my field, and I still had no offers. It sucks but it happens. It's more of a reflection on the process than on you. Don't give up. This round I got 7 interviews and have one acceptance so far; night and day from the last two rounds, and there have been only minor changes in my application, but apparently just enough to push me over the edge.

It could be a simple logistical issues, like there was no one who could be your adviser, the program didn't take any students because of funding, etc. If you have a rapport with a prof. in the dept. I don't think it hurts to ask if there's anything you could do to strengthen your application. I did this last round and found out that one prof. I applied to work with didn't get to take any students due to funding so it had nothing to do with me as a candidate.

First of all: I feel you on this issue! I have been rejected twice from the school my lab is affiliated with, where two of my letter writers are professors. My boss is poker buddies with the department chair, and not even an interview. At this point I believe the rumors that this school does not like to take people already "in their system" (i.e. undergrads, employees, etc.). Another interviewee at another program said to me, "Oh, you work there, you must be a shoe in!" and I explained how that's not the case due to the academic incest bias. I don't know if this would work for you in interviews. I agree that saying you want a change of pace is a safer bet.

I just tell people "I study brains" (cognitive neuroscientist). Usually people bring up the latest article that made the news about brain research, which is ok because I keep up with that stuff and can chat about it. The one annoying thing is because there's been so much press about CAT scans and radiation, I get a lot of people asking me about how dangerous my work is and if I worry about the radiation exposure...except I work in MRI research where there is no radiation. It's amazing how the radiation paranoia persists even after you've explained several times that magnetic waves and radiation are different/unrelated. This has even happened with consented research participants, who have been told exactly that a billion times verbally and in writing.

In my experience, if they tell you a week, give it two. I had one school that told me interview invites would go out in late January, but I got mine in late February instead after spending a month wondering what was up since they had strongly implied I'd get one. I don't think any school has held to its promised time line. So I would give it two weeks and then ask about the status.

Interesting. I work near a nationally known art school and in thinking about it, this is definitely the most common look. But I guess I always assumed there was more room for self expression in art school. I get mistaken for a student at that school pretty regularly and I am definitely not an Urban Outfitters type (and don't get me started on the upselling of thrift store chic that UO perpetuates).

You are correct in your interpretation of my concern. And the gender angle is interesting too - however, I could see the same bias working against a man with an unusual or flamboyant sense of style (i.e. elaborate facial hair, three piece suits with fedora, etc.) I have a friend who is a 30s enthusiast and wears only vintage attire, and even though he is now CEO of his company, he is aware that people think he's weird and don't always take him seriously. Personally I think if you are competent enough people will overlook all sorts of personal quirks, but I am at the entry level of academia in so many ways and am just tiring of managing so many first impressions.

I am a neuroscience/psychology applicant, but I always have and probably always will look more like an art student. I am started to get frustrated with the bias against caring about one's appearance that seems to be prevalent in the sciences. My style is colorful and vintage inspired, somewhere between fashionable and slightly eccentric. I realize simply from interacting with academics at work all day that putting effort into ones appearance is somewhat unusual. The vast majority of my female colleagues either look like they stepped out of the Ann Taylor/Talbots catalog (at best) or are ready to go on a nice 10 mile hike (at worst). I stick out because I wear makeup, heels, dresses, more than one primary color at a time, etc. I have been seriously toning it down for interviews - plain, straight hair, little to no makeup, soft neutral color palette, classic tailored pieces like blazers, etc. I don't want my appearance to distract from me as a candidate. As much as it would be more fun to wear a 40s suit with a hat and gloves, I don't think my flair for vintage textiles really belongs on display while interviewing in the Biology department. And then after all this careful consideration of what impression I want to make, I show up to interviews and half the other candidates are either in jeans, wrinkled khakis, sneakers, sporting ungroomed stubble, or wearing their hair in a messy unbrushed bun. And no one seems to bat an eye. And it makes me sad. I am sad that as scientists there are such low standards for personal appearance that basic grooming, like shaving or brushing one's hair, does not seem to be expected. Furthermore, that by wearing my usual makeup and clothing, I would probably be taken less seriously that someone wearing some rumpled mess of an outfit, simply because I might have devoted 20 minutes to my appearance that some professor thinks would be better spent collecting data. It does the scientific community no good to perpetuate the stereotype that we are all poorly groomed mad scientist types. Maybe the public would relate to and trust doctors instead of pretty people like Jenny McCarthy if we were held to basic standards of looking presentable. Ok, getting off my soapbox now.

I was in this situation - 3 days notice to come in for an interview 4 hours away - and told them I had other obligations and would be willing to either reschedule or do a phone interview. They were able to push the date back 2 weeks.