quick1

Anyone here anything from Seton Hall or St. John's University (Clinical Psychology) yet? According to past Result's surveys notifications of interview offers should be out or coming very soon...

I feel the same way sometimes and I had a lower undergrad GPA than you! I def think schools put way too much focus on Quant. scores as if it's some magical number that says "I'm going to be awesome at whatever you're doing in your lab." It's like the LSATs, I knew someone who had no background in law or politics and took the LSATs on a whim, she got a perfect score and within a month had schools contacting her to apply and offering her free rides to law school!! It's a number people, people do game these tests and they aren't the best predictor of success.

I had a few professors and mentors in the field point out that "in some cases having a Masters degree hinders your chances of gaining admission to a PhD program." I asked why and the response was "Well while this isn't the best thing to do, many schools want fresh and out of undergraduate students that they can shape and mold to their specifications based on the school's orientation, research, professors, and clinical work." I researched this theory a bit online and found multiple articles and forums discussing this very thing. Sure a student with a Masters is possibly more dedicated, more mature, and proven capable of handling graduate work. But they also have more experience, might know more, and might be resistant to just doing what their research professor says because they have been "tainted" by other orientations. If you are fresh out of undergrad you haven't really shaped your research orientation or your clinical orientation and if you have you're already looking at schools that match that. Also online there is a sense that Masters programs in psychology are "easy" since anything more than one C+ or lower on your transcript is automatic dismissal. So there's a sense that Bs and even As are passed out more freely even if it isn't true. With a Masters you might also "be tainted" with real world experience. It sounds insane but more and more realistic as I'm 8 rejections in this season with clinical experience, my own research based thesis, and a good masters GPA. Like others I screwed around a bit in undergrad and even when taking extra courses to get a background in psych. I too thought a dedicated Masters student would look good and show dedication and ability to work at the graduate level successfully but now I'm doubting that a lot.

I have a Masters in Psychology and even I think it's a waste at times. And that's depressing. We could all go to Psy.D programs and pay tons of money to get a degree, it seems like unless you can ace the GREs you're stuck in loan debt for life if you want to get beyond a Masters in this field.

Thanks for the feedback. Congrats on being in a program and getting in when you did, Northwestern is one of the top schools and you deserve every bit of that acceptance! It's refreshing to hear it from the other side, someone on the inside. It's also depressing that it has gotten to the point that students in programs doubt their own ability to be in the program had they applied today and not a few years ago. It's getting out of hand for sure and more and more it feels like a crapshoot. It sounds like you're very grateful and appreciative where you are today and that's really awesome!

I've got 7 rejections and 2 assumed rejections out of 16 schools. I feel like some of my undergraduate grades and my GRE Math scores are what are keeping me from getting even an interview and to rant a little: it feels completely insane and unfair. I'm a rational guy, I understand people bust their ass off to get perfect scores and perfect grades and do research, get clinical experience, and basically show their stuff. I have a 3.84 graduate masters GPA, took the time to complete an optional research (data collection, interviews, built it from the ground up) masters thesis , have clinical experience, have science research experience in undergrad, and took psych undergrad courses after graduating undergrad to prepare for this journey. I retook the GREs and improved all my scores, above average Verbal, above average Writing, and a slightly average Quant score. Math is my weakness. I have a few bad grades from undergrad (and it was all during times I was trying to find my flow and find my passion). I found my passion in psych and found my driving motivation doing my own research and being the first in over a decade to do so at my Masters program. I thought, sure the grades overall are good (a few bad marks happen), the GREs aren't everything, and I have a lot of other experience that is relevant in clinical psych! And yet I have the sinking feeling I'm getting screened out or just rejected because of some undergrad grades and a slightly low Math GRE scores. Mini rant again: Math isn't everything ( we run SPSS and other programs for a reason in Psych!), what I did in undergrad doesn't represent how I really proved myself at the graduate level, and finally it has been researched that upwards of 60% of doctoral students across all fields NEVER graduate (mostly ABD status). There have been countless articles written interviewing graduate programs and the dumbfounded nature of discovering "some of those with the best scores and grades flopped in the program" and "some of those we took a chance on ended up wowing us and really showing their hard work and graduating." Like a lot of you I know I can really contribute to the field, make a difference, and most important to the clinical psych programs: work my ass off for them teaching and researching and bringing in money for them. And like many of you I can do it without the attitude and with humbleness because I want to learn from the best and want them to know I appreciate having these opportunities. I want to work hard, I want to prove myself, and it is downright depressing to think I and others who really are going to stick to it and get it done with hard work are thrown to the side because someone else has "high math scores" and "straight As" in undergrad. It's like the law school mess: I knew someone who got a perfect LSAT score (zero law background) and had schools calling and mailing her to offer her scholarships and admission and she didn't even apply! Really these adcoms in all fields need to wake up and realize high GRE scores are NOT good predictors of overall success and the most recent grades of a student in the field tend to be the BEST predictors of overall success!

Congrats. But no offense that is a pretty week GRE score for most competitive PhD programs in clinical psychology. I've seen applicants with literally perfect GRE scores and they usually get in. It def depends on the field. I would expect in engineering you'd need a higher Quant score but well done for getting in! That's awesome!

I think it depends on the program. I'm applying for clinical psych and counseling psych PhDs and I've been told multiple times by people that having a graduate degree already and those courses can actually hinder one's chances of admission. Reasoning is often along the lines of "Masters programs tend to give out A's and B's a lot more easily than undergrad" and "Undergrad applicants are easier to "mold" into whatever style, orientation, or research being used at the doctoral level at the school." Example: I have a 3.84 Masters GPA, a research based independent and elective Masters Thesis, and over a year of clinical experience. I have additional research experience in a science field as well. I've been rejected from 8 out of the 16 programs I've applied to so far and I have an idea that it is because my undergraduate GPA and a few bad courses from 4-8 years ago are keeping me out of even getting an interview. So depending on your program and major, it could be a great help or a great hindrance.

Thats how I feel as a fellow psych person. I've gotten nothing but outright rejections so far so a wait list at this point would be great!

Since I've already been rejected from half the schools I applied to, I'd like this theory to be true.

It's hard to say for sure. In my field at least it seems pretty much that if you aren't invited for an interview or the interview date passed without an invite to interview that you can pretty much assume rejection. However, I remain optimistic that in some cases it could be a pending waitlist notification instead depending on many factors. Each program is different. I've gotton nothing but rejections so far, some schools sent them the same time they sent others interview invites. Other schools wait until after they've made all their acceptances to reject.

I was actually hoping that this new GRE would help me. When compared to equivalent scores on the past versions I actually did better. But I hoped it helped because of the added confusion and careful consideration needed for a new scoring system. This might explain why some schools are delayed in responding to applicants. But it could go either way, schools are looking at applicants some who have old scores and some with new scoring scores.

Don't worry it's not over until it's over...they the schools have until April 15th to make a final decision (unless a rolling basis then it's up until the start of classes). I applied to about 15 schools this time around (very competitive field) and already have been rejected from half of the schools. I have good reason to believe I am already rejected from 2 other schools due to dates listed on the Results. But unless I receive an official rejection from these remaining 8 schools I have to assume no decision has been made yet. Wait listed statuses are sometimes sent later on and are better than a rejection IMO. The first time I applied, two schools offered me review at Master's level...one school of the two accepted me. It was a great feeling and worked out well. This time I already have a Masters and so it's more disappointing as the rejections role in. A colleague of mine already has 3 interviews scheduled, turned down one interview (because "I don't really like the school anyways") and is doing the other one but expects "I'll turn down their offer if they give me one because they aren't accredited currently." Her and I are both in or recently completed MA programs, scored similar on new GRE, and have similar grades and I'm 7 rejections in... Keep your head up as I'm doing the same. I'll be really disappointed if I get rejected from 15 schools but I'll have to regroup and figure out a new game plan next time around.

I've had dreams where I got accepted to a program that was a top program I never applied to. I've also had dreams where I woke up thinking I won the lottery...I was so excited and happy waking up and telling myself how nice it was to be a millionaire and all i could do. It took a few minutes to review the vivid dream memories and realize sadly it was a dream.

I still need to get a tattoo I've been meaning to get for years. But if I got into a PhD program I'd probably look to splurge on either a new Apple iPad or a new Mac Pro and keep my older Macbook Pro for portable uses. Actually I probably couldn't afford a new Mac Pro but I miss having a powerful desktop so one day I'll get one. More realistically I'd treat myself to a new MBP or iPad.

I applied to their Counseling PhD program and haven't heard anything yet. I noticed 2 or 3 people said they got phone interview emails about 2 weeks ago. My application status online says "under review" so I don't know what to think yet. For me I'm thinking best case scenario is wait list, but Masters programs tend to be on a different schedule.

I completely agree with this. If I get in anywhere I'll be more than grateful to have my foot in the door and really have a chance to shine and do what I do. I'll show I can handle the workload and that the school made a great decision. It's like the athlete who is mostly a bench player. They sit there most of the season until something happens and suddenly they are out there on the court, rink, or field. It is their moment to shine and they might not be the best but they were good enough to get a look and get signed. Now in the moment they have a chance to show why they got that chance. Those who say "Oh I wouldn't go if I was second choice" and "it's an insult and disrespectful" are, IMO, individuals who have an attitude problem and probably not pleasant people to have in one's cohort as a fellow student or in a class as one's student. Sure it feels great to feel like you are in demand and are the top pick for someone to work with, it feels good and I don't blame anyone for wanting to get that feeling and embracing it. But it comes across as entitled, cocky, and ungrateful to essentially demand first pick or no pick and look down upon second offers, it's like the T.O.'s (football player) of grad school. Sure you might be good at what you do, really good, but the sense of entitlement and demand for the best or nothing isn't seen positively by most and in the end bites you in the ass. These are the types of people who perpetuate the sense of elitism and big egos. These are the same people that get crushed when they get rejected from a school and are all about the "but I have perfect scores, and straight As, and I'm published, and my LORs are Noble Peace prize winners, and I save kittens why did I get rejected, I'm amazing and they should have taken me." Call me naive and a bit academically romantic, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a small part of an admissions decision comes from the sense of whether or not the "fit" includes "is this person going to be confident in their work but humble enough to know that I'm the boss and I'm the expert they are learning from." Perhaps that is why some stellar "on paper" students get in with ease while others with the same "great grades and applications" get wait listed or outright rejected. There needs to be some humbleness especially when you are the student and those in the program are the mentors and experts. It's about respect towards those that a.) do what you hope to do one day, b.) have the ability to guide you and help you reach your goals, and c.) know more than you on the given subject most likely. Sure it's alright to strut and show off a bit when you get into a school and you know you were a first choice...but it's alright to do the same thing if you were wait listed and later came back around to and accepted. It means, you have something they think has potential and it is now your job to prove you can do it and prove they made a great choice in the end. Remember you are the student they are the professor. One day you might be the professor and do you really want to work with/teach students who think they are too good for your work/class? But hey pass on those second offers and wait list offers if it makes you feel better about yourself....people like sansao, myself, and many other students will gladly accept your spot and the chance to really show what we've got. I don't mean to offend anyone personally, this is just my take on the situation. Turn down all the second offers and wait lists you want, just know the spot won't be there later down the line because someone else will gratefully accept the offer.

Isn't there some rule in place where you don't have to commit to a school until April 15th of the April before your first semester is to begin? Based on the fact that not all schools will have decided as early as other schools.

It is something to ponder. In my current experience I currently have only rejections coming in and so I assume from those rejection schools they notify everyone pretty much at once what the decision is: interview, reject, wait list. So not all schools are delayed. Other schools I think its a matter of keeping some applications around in case the current top picks don't work out (it would be better for all schools to notify all at once and use wait lists). I've also heard of schools offering interviews (non-rolling applications!) to applicants before the application deadline is even near! So they must consider something better could come through the process too. I think most schools that delay it do so because they are either focused on recruiting the few they want or they need some backups. It's really hard to tell because every school is different. Last time i did this for masters, I got a few rejections , an acceptance, and another few rejections after. It ranged from mid-January to late March all said and done and the acceptance came in March. I do wish they'd all standardize it, but I don't know if they intentionally wait to notify rejected applicants. Seems more a matter of poor organization or wanting to keep some backups just as a job application process would. You are correct I think, people would be naive to think its because they are getting extra special review. I'm sure if it comes down to two people and theres a wait list, one gets offer one gets wait list. As we all know schools have rough timelines for when committees review, one school I applied to is behind based on their website timeline and took the time to email applicants who made it through the "graduate school minimum requirements" and let them know it was slightly behind and notices would come next week at the latest. Its cruel to leave people in the dark or give false hope, but it is what it is and not all schools do that.

Don't worry. Schools are on different schedules and timelines and there are a lot of applications. I disagree with regal's theory of some computer algorithm for a number of reasons. I'll note my long post is in regards to competitive funded PhD programs (like Psych). One it is against the terms of use for ETS tests (aka GREs) to apply cut off scores and algorithms. This doesn't mean schools can't set minimum requirements or suggest competitive scores to keep some people from even applying. It'd be a scandal if schools got caught using a system to weed out on numbers alone. However one school revealed through its contact with applicants that you "met the minimum graduate school requirements and your application will now be forwarded to the department for their decision to be made" aka they screen out in the larger grad school then pass it along. Two you don't need an algorithm when you can throw applicants aside easily if something is "missing" and the deadline passed. You either set high hurdles (complicated application process, multiple chances for info to get lost, etc) and discourage some possible applicants or you as a school know some LORs will never arrive (or transcripts, or scores, or documents) and thus can reject based on incomplete applications. How many people would apply then read the average grades/scores of successful applicants and say "that isn't me" or realize a LOR never arrived and thus application never got looked at. Easy weed out right there. Thirdly even just a quick glance at an essay or CV can reveal something very appealing about an applicant. Remember in some fields it is ALL about fit with a professor's research. If something piques the interest of a reader, professor, or admissions committee member that could get the applicant at least a second glance or even an interview. Since some schools screen out using the larger grad school "minimum requirements" as an unofficial screen out process, they already know the applicants they see in the dept are at least somewhat intelligent individuals and if that fit is there it may be worth a shot to interview them. Some schools insist they (the committee) review every single applicant, like someone else said likely with a quick read over but still human eyes checking it out. Schools, especially funded ones with a name to build, are fearful to miss out on the next big superstar of their research areas. Sure a perfect GRE and GPA is great but is not a great predictor of overall success in the program or in the field. (Close to 60% of doctoral students end up in ABD status for years and many never get a PhD because of it, high scores don't predict ability to survive and finish in grad school). A great match and fit coupled with dedication, motivation, and a unique research interest IMO overrides some numbers. If they don't review most applications they might miss out on something amazing and a competitor school might instead get that next research superstar. You have to consider what they really want. I'd say they want a dedicated motivated and very loyal student who will do the dirty work of TAing, teaching, or grunt research work without hesitation and help that professor with respect and focus. And one that will make them look good later down the line. And maybe some want to help the next generation of researchers but really its about what you can do for them and their name. My theory on delayed rejections is as follows: In some cases (as another pointed out) the schools already cherry pick their top picks and set up interviews and push the rest aside (eh we'll let them get their rejection later because our focus is on these top picks) and thus a simple issue of allocating resources to getting the very best applicants they can. However this doesn't explain wait lists and acceptances that come after the first picks have been looked at and "wined and dined." Wait lists are a nice way of saying "Well our top applicants are so cream of the crop that they may go to even better schools so you're our second and third pick. When 2 or 3 of our dream applicants reject us we'll come to you and offer you their spot." Same with late acceptances. The school either realizes a top applicant isn't what they expected or the person is likely to turn the school down so they keep a bunch of applicants on tap in case. Which explains why some schools don't send out rejections until well after the initial interview/acceptances. If you reject a possible student they may go elsewhere in meantime and as a school you want to meet your quota and have backups as needed. As for the schools that are quick and make their decision at the same time, that is how in a perfect world we'd want it to work. We selected 50 people for interviews and will offer admission to 10 of them and wait list 5 of them and know 3 or 4 of the top 10 won't come here so the rest of you are rejected. Of course a supervisor of mine had another theory: Keep in mind these individuals went through the same hard, scary, intense application process. They obviously made it through the process and thus see this all as part of the game they had to go to, so you have to go through it too.

I'll also add that one thing i just learned is to ask if the RA/CRC/CRA positions include education support and training programs. They offered this information to me as a "perk" in the event I was chosen. I just did a phone interview (kind of awkward!) with a really great one. It's weird because online there is little info about what you'll actually being working on, so she spent time telling me what the project was, what I'd do there, the population. It was nice because I was able to converse about research interests and how they dovetailed into what the position entailed. They were very happy to hear that my long term 3-5 year goal was to get a clinical PhD because "We only seek out RAs/CRC/CRAs that want to get a doctorate, part of our whole goal is to provide individuals this experience and we have multiple training programs free to help support our researchers get into a great PhD program, we fully support our staff's goals." Basically apply to a bunch of direct job postings on university websites in your area for RA, CRC, and CRA positions. You won't know much about the work based on the job description unless they seek you out but when they do phone interviews they will want to hear you are interested in pursuing a doctorate eventually it seems. And you won't know the jobs really exist unless you either hear from someone on the inside (a fellow student is a CRC at same place and while I didn't name drop, I made it known that's how I became interested through a colleague) or direct on the website. It's a shot in the dark applying as you don't know exactly what you'd do there or what they want. The only thing is some of these positions require a 2 year contract, which might mean forgoing doctoral school for a bit or deferring an acceptance, but the trade off is getting some great contacts and experience in the field. Now I'm off to wait with held breath to see if they invite me for a second interview. I almost choked on my drink when they told me who the lead director I'd be working under was. Big time.

You may want to check individual schools job websites for lab manager positions such as clinical research coordinators. I have a phone interview for a coordinator position this week. I got directly rejected by 4 positions through email and at least 3 were filled without me being contacted. This is the first interview for a lab manager like position. I've already implemented my backup plan , I realized many schools do allow deferment of acceptance up to one year which means if I get a job I can keep it for least a year. If i get in nowhere then my backup plan is already in the works.

Thanks for the feedback , I appreciate it! I''ll have to see how it goes.

Have an upcoming job interview for a clinical researcher coordinator position at a very reputable school (who ironically just rejected me from their doctoral program yesterday). It sounds like its dependent on funding and a lot of grunt work (scheduling, calls, paperwork, reports, data) and in the off chance I did get the job I'd have to leave most of the part time work I do working with clients but it'd be more money and more hours. But more importantly in the off chance I got a chance at a job like this, would doctoral admissions committees look at this as solid research experience? And in the interview do I bother mentioning I'm applying to doctoral programs or do I just focus on the job interest. I know, I know i'm putting the cart before the horse here but it would mean multiple changes in what I'm doing.

I got another rejection today and while i kind of expected it from this particular school I was quite upset to discover upon further inspection that 2 of my 3 recommenders never sent in their recommendations to the school. It was electronic notification sent direct to their email direct from the school to submit a recommendation online and two didn't bother to do it. I followed up with them before the deadline and they both said "All done." And later I find out it wasn't "all done." Really? I mean granted I don't know how much it would have helped my odds of getting an interview at said school (with the one recommender being an alumni and former professor in the same program I was applying to and she didn't turn it in!) but still that's harsh, unprofessional, and lazy. I don't care how busy a professor is, you don't say it's all done when it's not. And if the student follows up with you double check to make sure you took care of it esp. when the student is saying "the following schools still need your letter."