Gvh

I have a couple friends who had an across-the-board rejection cycle, and received similar feedback regarding their GRE scores. I don't think they are something that will get you into grad school, but it seems they can keep you out.

Your best bet is to apply to a combination of PhDs and MS programs -- if you get into a PhD program great, but if you only have luck with masters, then at least you're doing something to improve your strength as a candidate. I also went via the masters route and found it super beneficial, as others have noted.

Again, I agree with what everyone is saying here. The postdoc in my current lab did her PhD thesis in Alzheimer's disease (neuroscience/neuroanatomy research) and is now working in very different disorder in her postdoc. So, even from PhD to Postdoc there can be some changes in direction, so long as you can justify your interests and show you have the aptitude/skills necessary.

True! Though I was talking mostly about standard SOPs to join a lab, not necessarily scholarships. It makes sense that a scholarship require you to be pretty specific, but when joining a new lab, I would expect them to want you to be open to flexibility even if you do have particular interests.

Yeah, I think you're right. Additionally, if you lay out an extremely specific and detailed plan, you are more likely to set yourself up for showing holes in your thinking. After all, we are all still amateurs (presumably) in our fields, and we are likely to make mistakes along the way. Unless you are 1000% sure your research plan is air-tight, it's probably not a smart idea to lay it all out like a dissertation proposal. In other words, what is supposed to make you look focused and driven could make you look naive and sloppy.

Well, fair enough; though bear in mind there is a high likelihood that you will be writing your own letter -- at one point or another -- if you chose to stay in academia.

My guess is that IF your very specific research interests align perfectly with the goals and orientation of the lab you want to work in, then that's great. But on the flip side, having very specific interests may make someone come off as unyielding and potentially "un-coachable" in a lab that prefers someone who may have targeted interests but is still open-minded.

Agreed - from my experience, a lot of people in academia are asked to draft their own letters, and I have heard this confirmed from a number of high-profile profs on 2 continents. This is not just potential grad students but also post-docs applying for their own grants for the first time, professors requiring endorsement for promotion, etc. I also don't necessarily agree that it is "academic plagiarism" - academics are busy people, and often don't have time to study someone's resume/accomplishments and draft a letter from scratch. AS LONG AS the professor looks at it, adds the necessary tweaks, and approves it, I don't see why it is such a bad thing. It's a win-win: the referee gets to prioritize what they want in the letter, and the professor saves (probably) much-needed time.

Do you think it's worth emailing the POI anyway? I've heard of a number of people who heard from their POIs last minute saying they were, in fact, taking students when they had said no the first time. If you don't email them, they have no way of knowing to contact you...emailing just the grad secretary probably wouldn't have same effect. After all, is there anything to lose by asking?

Eh, I doubt that - my SO did 2 years of community college before going to a UC school and ended up at Harvard bio PhD without any pubs. FYI. Don't lose hope!

Generally, academia does not pay well at all - though there can be exemptions if you're doing computational work (e.g. computational genetics, biology, etc) or work closely in medicine/clinical subfield, but generally you would need another degree over your PhD to be able to qualify (e.g. MD, OD).

I agree. At the end of the day, if a POI gets 500 emails a day and 20 of them are potential students, attaching an impressive CV would make you stand out in sea of faceless emails; like one of the above posters said, most people who email don't have a shot, but if you give them an easy way to determine whether you have a shot, wouldn't that make them more likely to remember you?

Maybe it's too early? :/

Which program are you interested in? It's not uncommon for MA programs to not have an interview process. In this case, yes your SOP is your most important tool to show you're a good fit.

Probably not unethical - mostly because interview questions are usually the same ones for most schools (within the relevant fields, obviously), and secondly, there's no guarantee that the questions one person is asked are going to be the same for the next person.

Nice! I am currently aiming to send out emails late July/early August. Hope they give you positive responses

I have a similar spreadsheet with some minor differences; my left hand side panel looks like this: University App Account Login Department Dept. Rank (USN) Degree Lab Name POI name Taking students? App Deadline Avg. GRE Scores GRE Inst. Code App Fee LORs Transcripts SOP Funding? Accept. Rate Interview Period Admin Contact Info School Address Misc. Req's Useful Links

From my understanding, a 160 is absolutely fine to get you past initial cutoffs. I wouldn't retake -- especially since the rest of your profile seems great.

I interviewed for my lab job and I agree with Vene's comments. I would also add to make sure you read 2-3 of the prof's latest/most prominent papers. I don't know what field you're in, but I would also brush up on the main methods (e.g. stats) that are used in the field.

To be honest, it's mostly because I work 50+ hours a week. I agree that a good GRE doesn't get you INTO grad school, but if you don't pass some of the higher cut offs, your application doesn't even get looked at. I just want to make sure this doesn't happen. That is all -- no need to be condescending.

Hey all, I know this has been discussed in previous cycles, but I wanted to put it out there again for potential 2015/2016 applicants. So, I took the GRE a few years ago for my M.A and did "ok"; it wasn't abysmal but for the more competitive PhD application, I need something that is not going to get me cut at the first round. I have decided -- with a heavy heart and a (much) lighter wallet -- to enroll in an in-person full on Princeton Review GRE prep class. This is mainly because A) I studied on my own last time for a couple months and that didn't really work and B ) I work as a full-time lab manager and as a part-time TA, so I need some structure to my study routine to fit around my busy schedule. My question is: does anyone have any experience in taking the PR prep class? Or any GRE class (either in-person or online), for that matter? I know people have raved about Magoosh, and I had considered it. But ultimately, I need someone to hold my hand through the process. Thoughts?

Yeah, I have been advised to attach a CV too. If you think about it, you literally could be anyone with no experience which would be a complete waste of time for the prof. If s/he gets an idea of your experience and interests, it makes logical sense that they'd be more likely to give a meaningful response.

Yes, this tends to be the case in psych and even most neuro departments. The hard sciences seem to encourage applying "to the program" and then having new students do rotations for a year or so. But yeah in my case, if the POI wasn't taking a student, there would ultimately be no real place for me in the program (unless I modified my interests or something).

Good to know! Thanks Fuzzy!

I definitely agree that emailing POIs is ultimately about confirming research fit, but I don't quite understand this last point. I mean, at the end of the day if the POI in question isn't taking a new student, is there any point applying? Ideally, I'd want to know this info before I apply.