DarwinAG

I am an undergraduate at SF State, and the Psychology Masters program, especially MBB and Social have sent students to many PhD programs. I love the faculty there, and I have nothing but good things to say about them. They especially have a strong quantitative training. Just from the top of my head, they have sent people to Oxford, Champaign Urbana, Davis, Berkeley, Denver, WashU, and the ones applying this year have already had multiple offers from Michigan, Ohio, UCSD, and UC Riverside. Shoot me a message if you want more info.

I would go with a simple answer and say take it again. If you genuinely think you can boost these up substantially, and you have the time and resources, take it again. Aim for 95% percentile for both of these. Also take the Subjects GRE and make sure you get an 800 on it. Causually study for the subjects GRE since it's just rote memorization. Unfortunately, GREs matter. And a 95% on both signals a very strong applicant.

You know...I want to say at this point it would be too late to send your updated CV in order to get an interview. They've already formed an impression of you, and I think it would be difficult to substantially change that impression with a few lines on a CV (Unless somehow it's a 3 publication in press change, but they should have seen the "under review" from the original one). Now, printing out an updated CV and handing it to them during an interview is a different story. I highly suggest giving them an updated CV then or sending them a PDF copy during your interviews.

Sure. Send me your CV at DarwinGuevarra@gmail.com. I find that providing feedback is relaxing and rejuvenating. My CV is located in my signature below. I want to say it takes you directly there now. There's a pdf up top for a complete version of it.

Interview Weekends ASU (Quant) : Feb 20-23 Davis (Quant): Feb 25ish Duke (Social): Jan 24-26 KU (Quant) : Jan 25 Lehigh University: February 15 Notre Dame (All): February 7-9, 2013 Stanford University (Social): February 14-16 UCLA (Social): January 10-12 
UNC (Quant): Feb 15
 UT Austin (Social): Feb 22-23 
UT Austin (HDFS): Jan 24-26
 UBC (Social): Feb 7-10 
USC (Social): January 24-25
 UC Irvine (Social): January 28-29 
UC San Diego (Social): February 7-8 Vanderbilt (Quant): Feb 14-16
 WUSTL (Social): Feb 21-23 Yale (Social): January 27-28 University of North Carolina (Social): February 7-9 University of Rochester (Social): February 1-3 UCSB Feb 22-23 Univ of Oregon February 1 - 3 University of Toledo (Exp-Social): Jan 25th or Feb 11th UC Berkeley (Social): February 11-12 American University (Social): February 11 IU-Bloomington (Social): Feb 15-16 Florida State (Social): Feb 21-24 Rutgers-Newark: February 15 OSU (Quant): February 15 Penn State: February 14-17 University of Alabama: January 27-20 Texas A & M University: February 28 - March 2 University of Michigan (unofficial): February 21-24 University of Chicago: February 16-18 University of Minnesota: March 1-2 University of Denver: February 21-24

Ooo I still had a blast, even though I did not get to see any symposiums that I wanted. I am really going to plan the next one carefully and minimize meeting and dinner commitments. The emotion preconference was amazing. Dr. Lindquist, Dr. Adams, and Dr. Weisbuch really did a good job setting up the panel. I was able to meet, talk to, or just be in the presence of some of my academic idols. That part is just fun. I also had a debate with one of them on an article he wrote 10 years ago. They really are just people too. haha. It's also really fun meeting graduate students who are studying the same thing you are. Regretably, I was not able to see the second False Positive, Psychology talk. Or Lewin's presentation. Or the lip gloss party that it seems like undergraduates are not privy to. I really enjoy poster sessions, so I want to see more of those next year. What were some of your highlights?

Sure send it to me at DarwinGuevarra@gmail.com. I have a few things to do today, but I'll take a look at it during my break. I actually find reading SOPs and giving feedback relaxing most of the time. Feel free to send me your CV as well.

Note: University of Michigan is unofficial. Their interview weekend may change. Interview Weekends ASU (Quant) : Feb 20-23 Davis (Quant): Feb 25ish Duke (Social): Jan 24-26 KU (Quant) : Jan 25 Lehigh University: February 15 Notre Dame (All): February 7-9, 2013 Stanford University (Social): February 14-16 UCLA (Social): January 10-12 
UNC (Quant): Feb 15
 UT Austin (Social): Feb 22-23 
UT Austin (HDFS): Jan 24-26
 UBC (Social): Feb 7-10 
USC (Social): January 24-25
 UC Irvine (Social): January 28-29 
UC San Diego (Social): February 7-8 Vanderbilt (Quant): Feb 14-16
 WUSTL (Social): Feb 21-23 Yale (Social): January 27-28 University of North Carolina (Social): February 7-9 University of Rochester (Social): February 1-3 UCSB Feb 22-23 Univ of Oregon February 1 - 3 University of Toledo (Exp-Social): Jan 25th or Feb 11th UC Berkeley (Social): February 11-12 American University (Social): February 11 IU-Bloomington (Social): Feb 15-16 Florida State (Social): Feb 21-24 Rutgers-Newark: February 15 OSU (Quant): February 15 Penn State: February 14-17 University of Alabama: January 27-20 Texas A & M University: February 28 - March 2 University of Michigan (unofficial): February 21-24

This is probably an unnecessary post since you have made your decision already, but I would definitely include my advisor in any publication this early in my career for a few reasons. One, guidance and feedback I think warrants authorship this early. I am principal investigator on several projects, but I know how much my advisor has helped guide and supported it. Even when I conducted my honors thesis of which I am the sole principal investigator, I would still include him if I ever published the data because I think he was pivotal in shaping the work. Two, offering and extending authorship not only shows appreciation (which is a good reason on its own), but it also signals you want him to be part of your work. Three, extending authorship will give him more cause to actually finish the project with you, not to mention this has further downstream effects for future collaborations and writing projects. Ultimately, while I think APA guidelines does not specifically say "guidance and feedback" warrants authorship, such an extension has more advantages than not extending it. It is still your choice to extend it to him. Personally, I love working on papers with other people. It really cuts the work load and I think improves the quality of the work. I know I will have plenty of opportunities to publish on my own later if I ever want that experience. I may do it for funsies at one point.

Note: I deleted some phone interviews. It was getting way too long. Interview Weekends ASU (Quant) : Feb 20-23 Davis (Quant): Feb 25ish Duke (Social): Jan 24-26 KU (Quant) : Jan 25 Lehigh University - Interview Day - 2/15 Notre Dame (CBB/Dev/Quant): February 7-9, 2013 Stanford University (Social): February 14-16 UCLA (Social): January 10-12 UNC (Quant): Feb 15 UT Austin (Social): Feb 22-23 UT Austin (HDFS): Jan 24-26 UBC (Social): Feb 7-10 USC (Social): January 24-25 UC Irvine (Social): January 28-29 UC San Diego (Social): February 7-8 Vanderbilt (Quant): Feb 14-16 WUSTL (Social): Feb 21-23 Yale (Social): January 27-28 University of North Carolina (Social): February 7-9 University of Rochester (Social): February 1-3 UCSB Feb 22-23 Univ of Oregon February 1 - 3 University of Toledo (Exp-Social): Jan 25th or Feb 11th UC Berkeley (Social): February 11-12 American University (Social): February 11 Phone/Skype/Conferences University of Denver (Affect/Social): January 21, 2013 SUNY University of Buffalo (Social) January 21, 2013

I think you may have glossed over some critical points. It has been a long thread. -I did not suggest to drop women from the study altogether (prior to data collection). There is a difference between suggesting to not collect data from women at all to drop potentially noisy data from analysis after is hast been collected. -My suggestion to remove women from analysis was after "noisy" data has been collected already. Let's say you found statistical findings with potentially noisy data, then you really haven't illuminated anything. -And the study was on acute and chronic stress from perceived ethnic stigmatization. Data was also collected on acute and chronic life stressors. -I am of the philosophy that if you have a genuine question. You should ask. You don't want to compound ignorance with silence. I think an environment that facilitates this is better for learning than one where you have to by vigilant about not appearing naive or stupid.

Great idea. For those of you who have PMed knows that I am willing to share information that have been officially sent out. It may not be a bad idea to just post it on this thread unless that is somehow breaking some rule I am not cognizant about.

I was there for the first False Positive symposium. It was an amazing experience and it was a packed room. I think that those types of symposiums are very good for advancing the science. I am sad that I will miss it this year because it overlaps with a mandatory presentation. I am particularly excited about the Social psychologist as subjects symposium on Saturday from 9:45-11 Room 208-210. That should be entertaining. I also look forward tot he data blitz. I have never attended one before.

Interview Weekends ASU (Quant) : Feb 20-23 Davis (Quant): Feb 25ish Duke (Social): Jan 24-26 KU (Quant) : Jan 25 Notre Dame (CBB/Dev/Quant): February 7-9, 2013 UCLA (Social): January 10-12 UNC (Quant): Feb 15 UT Austin (Social): Feb 22-23 UT Austin (HDFS): Jan 24-26 UBC (Social): Feb 7-10 USC (Social): January 24-25 UC Irvine (Social): January 28-29 UC San Diego (Social): February 7-8 Vanderbilt (Quant): Feb 14-16 Yale (Social): January 27-28 University of North Carolina (Social): February 7-9 University of Rochester (Social): February 1-3 Phone/Skype/Conferences Notre Dame (CBB): December 7, 2012 Washington University in St. Louis (Social): December 12, 2012 Notre Dame (Dev): December 22, 2012 UNC, Chapel Hill (Social): November 1, 2012 (Unofficial chat) UT, Austin (Social): January 10, 2013 UC Berkeley (Social): January 4, 2013 UC Riverside (Social): January 7, 2013 UC Berkeley (Social): January 3, 2013 UNC (Social): December 18, 2012 Penn State (Social): January 14, 2013 University of Alabama (Social): January 18, 2013 UCSB (Social): January 10th, 2013 UC Santa Cruz (Social): January 8th, 2013 UC San Diego (Social): December 27th, 2012 USC (Social): December 20th, 2012, January 10th, 2013

I'm with Lewin on this. I only list things that actually I've started writing as well. I don't think you should list anything that doesn't even have an outline yet. And I applied to work with Dr. Jeremy Jamieson and Dr. Harry Reis.

Nice. You're from Rochester. I saw that Deci is one of your references. That's amazing. I was invited to visit Rochester for an interview, and I am planning on visiting this early February. Perhaps we'll run into each other.

It can be frustrating learning on one's own. I just always work and teach myself on the assumption that there is waaaaay more to learn. Dissatisfaction is an incredibly strong motivator (if you can handle the negative affect associated with it) What really motivates me is identifying some expert in the field and telling myself, I want my knowledge to come close to that. Then if I do come close to that, I move on to another ideal state/place as a goal.

Frequenting these forums and incessantly posting. I gave up facebook so it did not distract me from the graduate application process, but I think TheGradCafe has replaced it.

haha I don't think that's the case. I think it's just the packaging of my experiences, but I am sure peope in these forums have as much if not more research and teaching experience than me. If I get into graduate school, I will get rid of all the details in my research and teaching experience. I really enjoy TAing. Teaching has many beneficial intangibles. For example, I think I understands a lot better because I have taught several aspects of it many times. It really informs my research. But I think establishing really good relationships with the faculty afforded me a lot of oppurtunities to gain teaching experience, not to mention a lot of my peers who are graduate students are willing to let me lecture in their class. If you look carefully...I actually did nothing but TA an entire semester. That's not really anything, but it was something I really enjoyed to take the stress off studying for the GREs.

If you have a good relationship with the department and the professors, they sometimes allow you to sit in. I sat in an advanced statistics class and a seminar on positive psychology. It won't go on my record, but I learned a lot and I think one of my letter writers mentioned it.

I contacted Columbia today to see if they received my GREs. The graduate application representative also informed me that Columbia has sent out invites as well.

I disagree with this. If it's only a semester, I don't think it's a big issue. It is reflected in your transcript. Don't highlight it if you don't have to. If they ask you, obviously address it. I took some time off from school that I really did not address in my Statement of Purpose. In the interviews that I have gotten it has not come up. They were more focused on the recent research that I have been doing. If you don't make a big deal out of it, it won't be a big deal (and in your case I don't think it's a big deal). If they have a personal history statement, address it there. Otherwise, I wouldn't even mention it.

That is a great attitude to have. Kudos. I would certainly like to alter many things about my application packet. But you kinda just do the best with what you have. Here are some things I would like to improve upon: 1. Definitely know the literature better than I do now. Most of the POIs I have spoken to are very understanding in that they believe you shouldn't know the literature like a first or second year graduate student. But I certainly think it would have been to my advantage to have an intimate knowledge of the literature, the current issues, and future direction of the field. It would be easier to propose studies that way. I am still able to propose studies, but it requires more effort on my part especially since I am unfamiliar with frequently used paradigms let alone those that are upcoming. 2. I would have spent more time studying and preparing for the general and subject GREs. It seems to be more important than I anticipated. 3. I would start projects that are connected to my POIs interest. Although interstingly enough, this has not been much of a barrier. The POIs I have spoken too are much more concerned that you can actually just conduct research even if it is not in the field you are applying for. 4. I definitely want to understand more statistics and research methodology. I'd like to do more analysis than just mixed factorial or basic regression. 5. Since I want to take an interdisciplinary approach in my research, I definitely want to have a better understanding of psychophysiology and neuroscience.

Two things. One, feedback and another perspective is always welcome and greatly appreciated, but I disagree with "there's no need to defend your suggestion". As scientist we are encouraged to be active and critical thinkers, and accepting another's position without even actively engaging with it I think goes contrary to that spirit. I think feedback should not just be passively accepted. I have thought about what you said and replied accordingly, and I would expect the same thing in turn. Agreeing with it would still entail the same critical thinking process. I think this is the best way to move a discussion and better understand an issue. With that said, I especially like hearing yours and other people's perspective as I think it enhances my own, but eliciting feedback doesnt make those feedback immune to a critical evaluation. Two, I agree with you that women should be included in the study on social discrimination (although the focus of this study was ethnic discrimination, which is a minor point I think), but that the researchers should have controlled for things that would significantly impact cortisol levels. It is not uncommon in physhophysiology research to control for variables that would signifincantly impact the physiological DV in question. For example, in some EEG studiess, the sample is often restricted to right-handed people because of relevant brain differences in dominant handedness. Additional examples are controlling for antidepression medication, caffeine intake, and sleep cycles. All of these can impact relevant physiological DVs. I go back to my point that women should be included but controlling for relevant variables that could impact cortisol levels, in this case onset of the menstrual cycle. It wasn't controlled for in this particular study. I actually think she could have designed the study with more stringent controls and still retain important external social validity.

Interview Weekends UCLA (Social): January 10-12 Notre Dame (CBB/Dev/Quant): February 7-9, 2013 UBC (Social): Feb 7-10 Vanderbilt (Quant): Feb 14-16 UNC (Quant): Feb 15 UT Austin (Social): Feb 22-23 Phone/Skype/Conferences Notre Dame (CBB): December 7, 2012 Washington University in St. Louis (Social): December 12, 2012 Notre Dame (Dev): December 22, 2012 UNC, Chapel Hill (Social): November 1, 2012 (Unofficial chat) UT, Austin (Social): January 10, 2013 UC Berkeley (Social): January 4, 2013 UC Riverside (Social): January 7, 2013 UC Berkeley (Social): January 3, 2013 UNC (Social): December 18, 2012 Penn State (Social): January 14, 2013 University of Alabama (Social): January 18, 2013