MakeYourself

I think the number of publications you have and how productive you were as a graduate student is more important than what University you attend. Sure, a higher-ranked University might have more opportunities in terms of networking, but ultimately, if you are unhappy with your research topic you won't be as motivated to work hard. (Like social psychologists like to say: intrinsic motivation is much better and more productive than extrinsic motivation). Personally, I had the same dilemma and picked the school with the POI that matches my research interests more. At the end of the day, I want to be happy knowing I'm studying what I'm passionate about more than how much I care about how others perceive what University I am at. But I guess everyone's different and it depends on what you personally value most. Also another thing to remember, just because a school is highly ranked doesn't mean the department you want to study in is highly ranked too (and vice versa). You could have a great department in a low-ranked school, so make sure you do your research.

True, and to be honest, this is something that I really detest about the academic world. But unfortunately, I love research, so I'm stuck trying to fit in somehow, even with my opposing views. Ultimately though, I think that when deciding on a graduate institution, research interest and advisor fit should outweigh school location and ranking. You could get placed at a really prestigious school in an awesome and new place to live, but if you have no interest in the research and your advisor is driving you crazy, then you probably won't last very long (or do very well in the program). Okay I think I've ranted enough

I understand that. And I didn't mean my post as an attack on you (sorry if it seemed that way). You are right though, whether I like it or not, a lot of people in academia have views that oppose mine. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of these factors that professors worry about are irrelevant to fit. They should be judging people on research fit, not making assumptions (that they can't even prove) on lifestyle fit.

As far as willingness goes to move to a different area, wouldn't that be proven by the fact that they applied for the job in the first place? And as for the ability to move to a different place, I know people who have moved around their entire lives who are just terrible at moving, they are always all over the place, can't figure anything out, and always have trouble adapting, but they move around because they enjoy living in different places. I think this is completely separate from your ABILITY to adapt to a different place. Sure, it may be difficult for someone who lived their entire life in one place to adapt at first, but it is not impossible at all. I'm sorry but I just think this is a ridiculous reason not to hire someone who is perfectly qualified. Also, I think people on the hiring committee need to be realistic about people's living situations. There are a lot of cases where people will choose to stay in the same area because of their family (they might have kids) or because of their SO, but then 6 years later when they are applying for jobs, they are more suited to move to a different place (partly because now they will actually be making money if they have a new job and don't have to worry about supporting a family, and/or their SO can move with them since one of them will have a stable income at least). I've talked to faculty who think that researchers should put their career before a family and even some who think that if you want to be a researcher you SHOULDN'T have a family. Again, I think this is such a pretentious and ignorant way of thinking. There are plenty of other professions where individuals can attain higher degrees of learning and stay in the same area and then apply to work somewhere else. You don't see these employers worrying that their applicants are too closed-minded and won't be able to live far away from home. Frankly, it's none of their business. Again, academia is funny in that people's arrogance gets to their heads and a lot of faculty think they have the right to judge others based on every single aspect of their life.

To be honest, the whole 'you must go to a different school or you will be closed-minded' perspective has always seemed really elitist and pretentious to me. Let's all be honest here, there is A LOT of arrogance in academia. It's extremely competitive and people always want to somehow place themselves above others. The argument that you cannot open your mind or you will be stuck with rigid views if you stay at one University is just another ridiculous way for people in academia to prove their superiority over others. It is entirely possible to transfer to a different school and become even more rigid in your views - take for example departments that are not diverse and that are so fixed in their theoretical views that they expect their students to see things in the exact same way and also do not expose their students to a variety of perspectives. In this scenario, you could come from a very diverse and open undergraduate university and transfer to this rigid university and you would actually be DECREASING your chances of expanding your frame of thought. I'm not trying to say that going to a different university is always a bad thing, of course it isn't! But what I can't stand is this elitist way of thinking that runs through academic circles about staying at the same school. It is an old and tired way of thinking that is not based on any kind of evidence whatsoever. My advice: Screw what these pretentious people say, instead, do your homework. Find out for yourself where you think you will thrive. If you think that your undergraduate school will provide you with the opportunity to expand your knowledge and will also open new doors for you and expose you to different ways of thinking then why the hell not stay there? Just because people expect you to transfer to that different Ivy League school? I just think that's ridiculous... Anyway, that's my 2 cents, and I'm sure a lot of people on here will disagree with me but I'm prepared for that

This thread really speaks to me... I'm about to turn down a top 10 school for a top 100 school. I really had my sights set on the prestigious school but after meeting with the POI I applied to work with, I realized 2 things: (1) He's an extreme control freak and extremely pretentious, I just cannot stand his personality, and (2) He has some theoretical ideas that I COMPLETELY disagree with, I think he's really misinformed. So although the school itself is great, I just don't think I can handle 5+ years working with this man. (He's already driving me crazy, he's been emailing me constantly since I visited and has sent me 10 articles to read within a week). I am actually really excited about going to the lower ranked school - I really like the POI there and they have a great faculty and the research topics REALLY interest me. BUT, if anyone can somehow cheer me up about having to turn down this highly ranked school please do

Thanks everyone! I think my gut is telling me to go to the lower-ranked school. I mean, both my research interests and my compatibility with the advisor are higher at this school so it only seems right. But it doesn't make the decision easy when the high-rank school is offering me a LOT of money. (Well, a lot in the academic world). But I think I will follow my gut! Because money can't always buy happiness, right?

I'm deciding between 2 schools right now. One is clearly a higher ranked school than the other and can also offer me more financial assistance. The other is not a top-tier school but it is a good school nonetheless, and it will also offer me good funding (just not AS good). I'm leaning towards the lower-ranked school because my research interests are CLEARLY more in line with this school (and I think I'd work better with the supervisor). But I just want to be sure - am I cutting my chances of getting a good job if I turn-down the higher-ranked school? When most people hear that I have offers from these 2 schools, they think it's an easy decision and that I should definitely choose the high-rank school. But most people don't really understand the academic world so I think asking all you great folks will yield me some better advice Thanks!

Thanks for the replies. It seems like most of you didn't really need to have your CV with you? I'm hoping to just take my small notebook - it's perfect because it fits in my purse so I don't have to carry it around the whole time. Taking a CV means upgrading to a large portfolio that I'm sure will become a nuisance when we go out for dinner and whatnot. I'm leaning towards not taking a CV but if anyone can convince me that it's crucial to take some copies with me then please do!!

I was just planning on taking a small notebook with my notes and questions in it for my visitation weekend. But recently I've been hearing that it's good to take copies of your CV? Is this really necessary? I feel like it will make my load much heavier (something that would be a nuisance considering I'm there all day for lunch and dinner, I don't really want to carry a giant folder with me). Thanks in advance for any responses!

So I know we've all thought obsessively over what questions we will be asking related to our programs, but now that I've got all that out of the way, I'm particularly worried about all those awkward silences and moments where I'm standing by myself and having to approach someone to start a conversation. (For example, at area lunches and other 'mingling' occasions... or even when you are just standing there with your POI and little awkward silences start to occur). Let's use this thread to post up some suggestions! Especially how we would approach facutly and grad students at lunches and dinners.

Good point. I think that basically it's different from school to school and even professor to professor. I had a professor from my undergraduate school once tell me that she thinks academic incest is terrible and it shouldn't be allowed. But at the same time, my undergraduate school has several profs who all did their undergrad and graduate degrees at the same school and now work there. I guess the point that surefire was trying to make was that it will probably not be impossible for me to find a job afterwards, but it may limit my opportunities because some schools/faculty might look down on it.

Wow, this was so helpful, thank you so much! (And I totally laughed out loud at the Oprah joke). Your point about how going to the same school might limit my job opportunities in terms of schools that look down on academic incest is really helpful as well. From talking to different professors, I've noticed that there are a lot of mixed feelings on this and it would be a risk for sure if I were to stay at the same school. I think I'll try your suggestion of making a list of priorities, hopefully I can make a decision that I feel good about soon!

So I guess I shouldn't be deciding on a school based on ranking.... but this is still going to be so tough! On the one hand I have an advisor who I work so well with and who's research I enjoy. On the other hand I have an advisor who's research I'm REALLY interested in but I'm not sure what our working relationship will be like. Should I factor in the fact that one of these schools was my undergraduate school? I hear that's frowned upon in academia.

Thanks for your response. I've heard that an untenured professor might be less inclined to let their students be first author on publications because he/she will want the authorship in order to get tenure. How true is this? Also, doesn't it look better when I'm looking for jobs if I went to a more well-known university? Or is that just a myth? I really appreciate any advice I can get!

Hi all, Well my dream has come true and I've been accepted to 2 of my top choices for grad school! But I'm so torn over which school to choose! I compiled a small list of all the pros and cons of the schools and I was hoping that you wonderful folks would help give me some insight into what's best for me. School 1 Pros: Work well with supervisor (he was my undergraduate supervisor and we have a great working relationship) Love the school and people in the department They will match the offer of funding that I get from the other school as well as let me keep my government scholarship along with a fellowship, AND they will give me a TAship. Cons: Research is narrow and I would HAVE to go into academia afterwards Less well-known school, but still a good school. Same school as I did my undergrad at - I think this may be frowned upon School 2 Pros: Advisor is well-rounded and open to different areas of the field, so I would have a wider range of opportunities for what I do my research on I could get a job not only in academia but also in public policy or education afterwards because the research relates to so many fields Bigger school, and more well-known Cons: Advisor is not tenured and I would basically be his first ever grad student I don't know what my relationship with the advisor would be like - it's a risk I'm not sure about their funding yet - I haven't received the details and I still need to ask them if they will match offers from other schools. Thanks!

Thanks for the responses everyone! I guess I won't really know how many people they will be accepting until I go there.

I've been invited to a 2 day 'recruitment weekend' for developmental psychology. I've heard that in clinical psych often your odds of getting in at an interview weekend can be anywhere from 3:1 to 5:1. I'm wondering if you all think this will be the same for developmental? As far as I know, it's not solely a deveopmental recruit, but rather a recruit weekend for the whole department of psychology. It's also not so much of an interview weekend, there are a couple blocks reserved for meeting faculty but I don't think they will be formal interviews. It seems to me that the odds for developmental should be me more in my favour. Does anyone else have any experience with non-clinical recruitments? Thanks!

Hi all, I have a couple questions about interview weekends... I'm a little nervous about the possibility that there may be quite a bit of competition (i.e., my POI might have invited 3 people but is really only going to accept 1). I tend to not do so well in these types of situations so I'm wondering... 1) For those of you who have been to a visitation weekend, is this usually the scenario? Or have your experiences been more optimisic? Was it more of an orientation for everyone rather than competitive? 2) What's the best way to deal with competition? I feel like if I'm too forward I'll seem rude and arrogant, but I also don't want to be too quiet and let others steal the spotlight. (Any specific examples of experiences and what helped people stand out would be really appreciated!). Thanks

So I've heard from one of my of POIs who has invited me to an 'interview/recruitment' weekend. But I'm really confused as to what this event means. I haven't been formally accepted so at first I thought it was more of an interview weekend, but now looking at the itenerary, there seems to be a lot of lunches, dinners, tours of the city, tour of the lab, and 'games'. There are only a few 'meet with faculty' blocks. My POI also asked me to list some faculty members that I want to meet with. Will these people be interviewing me too? Or is it just for me to meet with them? So should I expect that I'm supposed to be impressing them? Or are they impressing me? So confused!

From looking at the results section, it looks like all the clinical invites for SFU have been sent out and people are just receiving rejections now.

Sorry if a thread like this has been started before, but what are some reasons that you would contact the schools to let them know about updates to your application? I ask because 3 things have changed since I applied: 1) New TA position 2) New Conference Presentation acceptance 3) My SSHRC application has been forwarded from my undergraduate institute for final review which means I will probably receive the scholarship. Also, how would I contact the schools to tell them this information? The thought of it scares me.... Thanks!

This^

That's pretty awesome, especially since I love the Raven. Have you heard of the new movie coming out? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PGDV1SWRkQ

If it's this bad now, I wonder what I'll be like in February!