PsychGirl1

What field are you in? I'll be answering from a psych perspective. In both scenarios, I can picture times when it would be ethical and when it would not. For the first one, for example, if you had reasons by certain ones worked and didn't (ex. sampling, procedure, power issues), then I could see presenting the data from a few that worked with the caveat that it was not replicated in all samples (or whatever). But in general, you wouldn't want to run it across the 20 studies to begin with- you could just run it all together with study as a covariate or do a meta-analysis across the 20 studies. For the latter, I'm not sure how just putting data on a graph differently could dramatically change the interpretation. But that being said, people generally present their data, give THEIR interpretation of it, and then talk about some other possible interpretations and what that means. So yes, if your adviser is telling you to dig through and data mine tons of data and selectively present and selectively interpret things, then that could be considered inappropriate research strategy. On the other hand, you may just not be understanding how she wants you to approach or discuss things, or she might just not be well-versed in statistics. As an advisee, I think it is totally appropriate to say "I don't want to mine through these 20 datasets looking for something significant- I think it would be better research methodology if I conduct a meta-analysis across the 20 datasets" (or whatever statistical approach). Similarly, you can suggest adding the alternate explanations for how to interpret findings to the discussion section.

If I were you, this is what I would do (just my opinion): I'd strongly consider enrolling in a 2-year, full-time, research-based master's program with a thesis option before applying to PhD programs. Hopefully with your issues addressed (you are in treatment for both, hopefully?), you will be able to maintain a higher GPA in the master's program than in ugrad, and get some posters, conference presentations, and publications. Also, the additional LORs will help you a lot. While at the master's program, I'd suggest you network very strongly. You'll need to have a little extra oomph in your package, and having professors know your name might make the difference between your file getting thrown out on the first pass or not. I know that in this stage of the game, people just want to get in ANYWHERE to begin their career. But keep in mind that the choices you make now can follow you throughout your career and life. In my opinion, it's worth an extra two years to improve your application (and therefore career) that much more.

Master's programs vary widely- some are mentor-based, and some are less so (or it is general admissions and you pick a mentor once you arrive). You can probably get a vibe from the program website, and also reach out to the department admin for clarification. That being said, even if acceptances aren't mentor-based, you can still email your POI, tell them you're applying to the master's program, you're really interested in their research, and you were wondering if they mentor master's students, etc.

Potentially valid points depending on the situation. A few counterpoints to consider: - I know a good number of psychology professors who hate receiving these emails. Many times, professors put that they are accepting new students on their websites specifically to avoid getting these emails. They'd really just prefer to see finalized applications than have to answer 30+ emails from people they might not want to interview based on their application. - Particularly if you're applying to clinical psychology PhD- most applicants apply to 10-15 schools. Many programs receive 400-700 applications, and many POIs are overwhelmed with a large number of applicants per spot. You shouldn't be contacting your POI to work on department-specific fellowships at the application stage unless you are told otherwise by the program. That being said, if you're in a small field and applying to a program that gets a small number of applications, maybe this would make sense. (Or if the program specifically told you to do this). A department admin is probably a more appropriate person to approach about this at the application stage. - Questions about a paper: this can be discussed on interview day... if you get an interview. In some subfields of Psychology, it's more likely you will get an interview than others, and maybe this type of email would make more sense. In Clinical Psych, it's such a crapshot and percentage game that it's not worth wasting your time (or your POI's time) on things like this before you're actually invited to an interview. That being said, I could see emailing to discuss the POI's future direction of research if it is unclear based on available information. Again, that can be something that is asked on interview day though. My genuine advice is, don't send an email just to send an email. If you have a genuine concern, question, or issue- email. If you're trying to figure out a reason to email them just to impress them- don't. Particularly in clinical psych, I'm not as familiar with smaller subfields where perhaps these types of emails are more welcome. With all advice, this is just my subjective opinion based on my experiences on both sides of the application process, and from what I've seen in multiple (clinical) psych labs at multiple schools. As always, you should listen to all advice and then make the best decision for you.

Don't email them if you know they're taking students... that's the whole point of the email.

Depends on the field. We tend to dress business casual or just below it- other departments seem to rock t-shirts and old jeans.

I really think that the "MA is not a requirement" is something that should be triple checked before assumed. I assumed that it was not required for me- as other people in my cohort do not have a master's- but when I talked to our office, I was told that there was an implicit agreement that I would graduate before beginning the PhD program, as I was enrolled in it upon interviewing and that was the premise I was accepted under, and therefore would be required to graduate the MS program before starting my PhD program. Just keep in mind that there may be weird policies or logistics you're not aware of and make sure you're making a fully informed decision. If asked, I would have said my master's wasn't required for enrollment, but I only found out that it was required for me when I asked. Just a warning, as it sounds like the OP never actually contacted their PhD program to confirm. Summary: I'm sure it's not an issue, but you definitely need to speak to the PhD program directly before making assumptions.

You also need to triple check with your PhD program that having a MA isn't a pre-req. We were told that they accepted us under the assumption that we would have a master's. Also, our master's graduate dates were June or September, and my program started in August. When I asked, I was told that I had to officially graduate by the June date. Even if all my requirements were finished by July and the graduation was just a formality in September, that would void my enrollment in the PhD program. I know you don't want to tell anyone, but this is a situation where it will suck to tell people but you need to. The faster you know the rules and options, the faster you can problem solve and make things happen.

Also, per your OP, there is no harm in applying to both master's and PhD programs.

I used the Kaplan flashcards and many of the words from their flashcards were on the GRE test I took.

To the last point- not always true. I've had people in my lab (as well as my previous lab) start branching out into neuroscience and now we are running several studies using various imaging techniques.As long as there are people at the institution/nearby institutions who you can collaborate with and your PI is open (and you're willing to put in a lot of effort to learn the ropes), it's definitely possible. I think because of the way people anticipate the future of NIH funding, as well as the introduction of RDoC guidelines, many clinical/health psychologists have started expanding into the world of neuroscience. Although, I agree that it might be easier on you to do it the other way around :-)

You can approach it three ways: first, find someone who does this type of research NOT in LGBT people, and propose applying it to that population in addition to the populations they are already studying it in. Second, find someone who does LGBT research and propose bringing in the cognitive neuroscience and social cognition aspects. Third, look up papers in this area of research and see who wrote them. Those 3 methods should get you a decent-sized list of people who you may want to work with.

Get one of the Clinical Psychology Program books- they give guidance on personal statements. You can also find some websites online with advice. Find people on here who are also applying so you can edit each others. I basically wrote a very long version of mine, had all my friends edit it (took the suggestions I wanted), had my mom edit it (she's good at editing), had a few people on here edit it (and I did theirs), then asked current grad students and a professor I was close to, etc. Eventually, it will turn into what you need it to turn into. The key is to start early- aka now- and get revisions, suggestions, and advice from many different people and sources. Then use your judgment and knowledge to pick and choose what changes to make and how to sculpt it over time. Edit: in case that isn't clear, work your way up the ladder as far as having people edit it. For example, my friends don't know anything about clinical psych, but they had good structure, wording, clarification changes. As those types of things get changed, then you can gradually increase the psych-relatedness of who reviews it, and don't show it to a professor until it's near perfect. It's just the easiest way to maximize the benefit from each person reviewing it.

Nope, I was not a psych major and I took it. It's offered in October, right? I would say if you study most evenings and weekends, even with no psych background, 4-6 weeks of studying should be fine to get an excellent score.

I was told to always attach my CV and I did. I know some of the profs read them because they referenced it in their reply.