DarwinAG

I would give them time to reply. Then follow up in a week.

O Splendid a social psychology thread. Ditto with what Angua said. I'm currently a first year social psychology student at University of Michigan. Feel free to contact me about the process since it it still relatively fresh in my memory.

I dropped out of college for about 3-4 years. It wasn't a big deal in my application process and it didn't really come up at all in my interviews. We have similar GRE scores and your GPA is way better than mine. I think you'll be fine. Also, there are tons of sexual prejudice and gender expression faculty at U of M, although I think they are in Personality and Social Context.

I don't know anyone that does all those 3 things, but I think I applied to similar professors. Who are the self-regulation folks you're applying to?

Good luck to everyone. Applications are exhaustingfuly fun and rewarding. Feel free to message me if you have any questions about the application process and/or University of Michigan's social area. This applies to anyone, but mostly social psychologist since that is the area I am most familiar with.

http://www.src.isr.umich.edu/content.aspx?id=data_resources

I took the Psyc GRE to off set my low GPA. In the end, I am not sure if it actually helped me at all. The only way I think it can moderately help is if you have an 800 or score in the 99th percentile. I assume your GPA is on your CV then? Personally, I would bring it up. Going againts the advice of my mentors, I actually mentioned my low GPA as a weak part of my application packet. Most people dismissed it. Most people didn't care about. But I think they appreciated me being direct about it.

I work with Dr. Mark Geisler, one of the only psychobiologist at SFSU. It's a tough call because from what he tells me, they tend to have strict GPA cut offs. Your GRE scores and other academic record should offset that. My advice is to actually contact the people you'd want to work with for the program and plainly ask what your chances are given your academic record. It may be uncommon for someone to get looked at with a 2.9 GPA, but I have met people who entered Ph.D. programs with lower than a 3.0 because they were amazing at everything else.

O but it's an easy issue to address empirically. I assume your "film" focus in your profile is fake and that you applied to experimental psychology programs because I am restricting my claim to phd experimental psychology programs (mostly social and cognitive and clinical). If we define most as a simple "majority of" and we look at the top 50 (or 100) phd experimental programs in psychology, I would best that most require some form of interview. And we have access to most of the data in these forums in a different thread that posts the interview/recruitment weekends for many universities. The rest of the data can be obtained easily other ways. Haha we just need to find someone who wants to do that work because neither one of us Id imagine wants to.

False. Most experimental psychology programs (social, cogntiive, etc) require an interview. It has been a recent trend in the field, but most of the programs that I applied too, with the exception of one, required an interview before an offer or acceptance. Terminal masters psychology programs typically do not require an interview process, but I think it is also moving in the direction of having one before acceptances.

To me, a lot of the interest you mentioned falls in the realm of social and i/o psychology (unsurprisingly); however, I would focus less on the area of psychology and focus more on the actual people conducting research on your topics. Lewin mentioned Dunn. I actually do work on the relationship between money and happiness (well-being). Here are a few other names: -Ryan T. Howell (my adviser) -Tom Gilovich at Cornell -Peter Caprareillo (I forget where he's at, but he graduated from University of Rochester) -Amit Kummar at Cornell. Works with Gilovich. -Travis Carter. Graduated from Cornell -Leaf Van Boven. Graduated from Cornell. He is now at Boulder, Colorado. He may have moved away from this research but check out Van Boven & Gilovich (2003). If you do a forward literature search of this article you can see who else is doing reserach on this. In terms of goal-setting research and motivation: -Edward Deci and Andrew Elliot at Rochester -Faculty at NYU (I don't remember their names offhand...Gollowitzer I think and someone else). Now to do research on your own on the topic. I highly reccomend just looking at each field and looking for a review paper or meta anaysis, then start looking at the faculties cited. That is probably the best way to figure out who the people are in your area of interest.

Since interviews are winding down and offers are being made, I thought it may be a good idea to share each other's decision process. I actually would like to know what variable you think is the most important. What's least important? I actually plan to sit down and really think it through. I figured I owe it to myself to really consider my options and not just go with the peripheral route, so that I won't think question my decision in the future. Here are a few things I will consider when making a decision in no particular order: -Adviser personality fit -Research fit -Graduate student culture -Oppurtunites for collaboration with other faculty/students -Grant writing training/support -Mentorship and academic service oppurtunities -Quality of life -Availability of kareoke bars and dance clubs -Oppurtunites to learn new methodology -Teaching oppurtunities -Funding What's on top of your list?

My friend interviewed at princeton. Hes in the cognitive area though but i think its deparmental wide interview.

I think you're focusing on the wrong things. If your POI publishes regularly, that's a huge plus. So what if he isisn't super well known (and google search results is a terrible indicator of that imo), but is he doing good science based on your readings? I think you need to shift your focus to the quality of science he's doing. I highly reccommend shifting your focus, at the very least, away from prestige. It may really negatively color the perception of your visit and you'll miss an oppurtunity to work with incredibly astute, bright, and amazing scientists. I really only applied to places I could end up in regardless of prestige. The people I applied with are all doing amazing work that I'd like to be a part of. If prestige is something really important to you then the best people to ask are your advisers. They know the people in your field.

"darwinAG- easier said than done! i guess i need to take all those stress management techniques i learned in class and start administering them to myself, but i'm really too high strung to wait. in college, when i was waiting for college decisions, if the mail was late i would make my family drive me around to find the mailman so that we could get the mail directly from them. i made my sister drive me around once and she got a flat tire. she wasn't happy. i'm just going to throw myself into my epic to do list today and just try not to think about anythin" Yikes. What an interesting coping mechanism. Admittedly, I initially get worked up as well, but now I find myself just letting go of things I can't do anything about. There's a tibetan proverb that I recite to myself when I am figuring out how to handle a problematic situation which echoes Lewin's sentiments about letting things go after you turn them in: If a problem can be fixed you shouldn't worry about it. If a problem can't be fixed worrying will do nothing. In this particular instance, I actually think a friend who can emotionally regulate for you would be helpful, i.e. someone reappraising the situation for you.

Hi. I know this is not the advice you're looking for, but why are you applying to PsyD programs in Counseling when you are getting your MFT? I haven't done extensive personal research on this, but I have some clinical and MFT buddies, and they all have told me that if you just want to practice theraphy an MFT and a PsyD is essentially the same. Thus, it would be redundant to get a PsyD in Counseling if you already have your MFT. Now to your actual concerns. One, I don't think being numerically young does not count againts you. If you are mature and professional then age is not an issue. In short, you do not need to overycompenste for age. Two, why not just use your old personal statement? If it's good enough to get you into an MFT program it should be good enough to get you into a PsyD one. I suggest using the same intro. You obviously have to change some of the content to reflect your MFT experience.

I worked with someone who apprised me of little tid bits of information that are generally taboo or unspoken rules/facts/realities in academia. Some I am incredulous about. Some easier to believe. Here's what he had to say about prestige. I would disagree with "all that matters is your POI and the type of work you will be doing while you're there, and the experiences and support you will get". I would argue that those things are the most important. However, the reality of it is that school prestige matters. If there are two job candidates and they are all equal on all qualifications, but one is from a top 10 school and the other is from bottom 10, the tie breaker goes to the top 10 guy. Now i dont think its necessarily fair but its the reality of it. Of coirse this is all speculation and based on anecdotal evidence, but this study would be easy to do. Its a basic perception study. Im sure someone has done this already, but for now, there is strong anecdotal evidence for this prestige bias (one being that the first poster factors it in his/her decision process). Now for me personally, prestige does not matter. Adviser fit and graduate student culture matters more. In fact, the idea of going against a candidate from a "highly prestigious school" appeals to me. I kind of have an underdog thing going which is a fun position to be in. I find that it just makes me work harder.

Haha. I'm not sure how to take this. In one of my interviews, I met someone who was applying with me who had an incredibly impressive record. She had eight publications, tons of research experience on top of clinical experience. Not to mention she was just a genuinely good person (and good cook). I felt incredibly behind, but it just made me want to try harder to try and catch up to her. It's fun meeting people like that because it reminds you that there's so much to do. I actually think that waiting is the easiest part of the applicaiton process. Lewin gave great advice in terms of cultivating the skill of just turning something in and letting it go. I think that advice is relevant for post interviews as well. There's not much else you can do, so move on to a different part of your life.

Head up psychgirl. I experienced a rejection after an interview. She made a good point that we weren't a good fit, and I am inclined to agree with her. She got a sense that I was interested in a coadvising situation, and she wasn't looking for that at this point. She wanted someone who was interested in her work primarily. I know it is easier said than done, but you gotta just let that one go and focus on other things. I was disappointed for maybe 5-10 minutes then I realized there was nothing I could do about it. Nail the next interview.

Hey all. Since people are starting to hear official rejections and acceptances, I thought it may be helpful to start listing these notifications. I realize it may be redundant information, but it may be helpful for some and not for others. Either way, I can start: Rejection Notifications: -Michigan State University Acceptance Notifications: -University of Alabama -University of Michigan

This is certainly one of the drawbacks of having a top choice. Once you get accepted, you are more apt to just say no to everyone. I had a top choice in the beginning, but after the SPSP conference and speaking with a few professors, I decided to do away with the top choice and be open to the possibility of being anywhere. That's not to say that either approaches are better than another. If you absolutely have a top choice and you think not hearing anyone else will change that, all in good. But for me, I think it is worth to hear anyone out. There are unforeseen variables that may sway you to go in a different direction. I don't like being dishonest. So I would advice not saying "I have a conflict" when there isn't one. I think in navigating these interviews, honesty is ultimately the best policy. Honesty should not be confused with candidness though. Don't reveal everything, but don't lie. IT will more often than not, bite you in the ass so to speak. If I were in your position, I would be open to visiting them. At the very least you will have a lot of interesting conversations and you will get to know different researchers, which you will ultimately encounter again in the future. At the best, you may encounter hidden variables that can influence your decisions on what program you choose. These interviews function more than just admittance to a program...they are social networking opportunities and I have met a lot of people that I would love to collaborate and work with in the future. Of course this assumes, you are still at least considering the school. If not, then go with what Lewin says.

From my experience, you will usually interview with a host of people that you haven't even considered in your radar. I think they just want to get a you a feel for faculty. I did not really prepare anymore than I would for someone I was interviewing with. Most of these interviews are just to assess what you already know about your research and your ability to think critically and talk about research. If we have gotten to a point where we have an interview, these are skills we already have. Most of my interviews have been very casual and relaxed, even with some of the big names in the field. I've had a lot of fun just talking about different studies. When I don't know about something, I say it. When I think I am confused about something I don't try to hide it. Know your strengths and weaknesses and try not to hide anything imo. It's been working out well for me so far. Of course, you may mean that actually interviewing with someone who you didn't apply to but may want to work with you? In which case, I would just allow them to dictate the conversation.

I think it's program specific. I have been accepted to a Ph.D. program without an interview (phone call or in person). We did exchange a series of emails though.

We have probably applied to the same programs so we may get a chance to meet each other. I have an interview at Berkeley and Michigan coming up as well as Denver in terms of affective oriented POIs. One of the unexpected and surprising things was how easy it is to talk to some of my academic idols. I thought it would be very stressful, but it really just felt like a casual conversation about psychology and sometimes the publication process. As far as words of wisdom, the best advice that I ever received regarding these interviews is the old adage "be yourself". One of my advisers insight-fully pointed out to me that the point of these interviews is for you and the person you want to work with to get a sense of your "fit" together (personality, working, and research fit). It is a fuzzy construct, but I think you have a better chance of getting a feel for that fit if you're not faking anything. If you don't know something say so; if you disagree with something say so; if you like a particular thing or not like a particular thing say so. I've really taken this advice to heart, and I have just been very candid with people. I have gone as far as saying that "I wish there was more X,Y, and Z in the department", but it was well received. I have had debates on current issues in emotion, emotion regulation, and judgement and decision making. I attended a lab meeting and openly disagreed with a procedure of a person's proposed study. I have proposed different studies. I have openly admitted my ignorance of certain literature, physiological measures, and statistical knowledge. I have openly admitted the weaknesses in my application. In fact, I'm surprised that no one has asked me the "what are your weaknesses" question and that I sometimes have to volunteer information regarding the weakest parts of my application. I have had good experiences so far. Of course, I expect that there may be programs where I would not have this positive experience in which case the "fit" would not be a good one.

I've had the opposite experience (perhaps opposite is the wrong word). I attended two interview weekends so far, and they have been very enjoyable, stress-free, fun, and very casual. It really just feels like talking to different people about research, which is something that we do in our own labs or colleagues from our own universities. What I find exhausting are the long flights and the going to and from the airport, but the interviews themselves just feels like a hang out session with different scientists. It doesn't help that I am sick and can't seem to shake off this cold, but it hasn't substantially hindered my ability to talk about research. I actually had really good conversations with some of my academic idols and found some of them exceed my expectations. I have a few interviews coming up that are back to back which may be a bit more exhausting. It's really had to recuperate on the plane.