Has anyone ever messaged a professor during a review process (either app review or post-interview) and managed to convince them to invite you (for an interview or into the program)?

[1|]010ls10o]

Has anyone ever messaged a professor during a review process (either app review or post-interview) and managed to convince them to invite you for an interview or into the program? Wondering how viable of a plan this is. Would it be seen as annoying? Wondering if any impressions were changed.

[Timemachines]

When I first applied (first cycle) I emailed a professor a few days before invites were sent out and I believe it reflected poorly on me. I think it made me look desperate, which was then amplified by my lack of confidence throughout the interview, and then even more evident following the interview (tepid exchanges over email).

My thought on the matter these days is that you don't want to try to convince your way into a space where you were not necessarily wanted. It is not to say that you are not qualified! however, trying to find your way into an interview is rarely achieved gracefully and sets you up for a very uncomfortable foundation with a PI. Think of it as forming a close relationship with them for 5-6 years - this should be a mutual exchange based on fit and chemistry (communication)...this is hard to achieve with someone that would potentially choose you as a plan B, or didn't choose you at all.

What I do think is good practice is to email your PI of interest requesting some feedback on your application and how it can be improved. 

[Clinapp2017]

This is definitely not a good idea. Like @Timemachines said, doing this probaly makes you look desperate. 

 

From my experience, here’s three good times to email POIs:

1) pre Application: introduce yourself and see if they plan to take a student (if this info isn’t readily available online)

2) after receiving an interview invite: express your grattitude and share that you are excited to attend the interview (if you are going)

3) post-interview thank you: 1 day after your interview, send a kind thank you email specifying what you enjoyed about your visit and your conversations.

 

Other then that, I’d advise against. Profs get literally hundreds to thousands emails daily, so if you aren’t already on their radar, you doing this isn’t going to help and could hurt chances with them if you reapply in a later cycle. From my experience, POIs have strong memory for candidates they find particularly annoying  

 

 

[Stauce]

I would add an additional circumstance in which contacting the faculty member may be permissible. I have heard of some instances (and was just encouraged by a faculty who could not invite me due to lack of funds) of instances where a faculty is low on priority and/or the program or faculty member cannot invite many or any potential students. However, after an applicant receives a fellowship (NSF, Ford, etc), the faculty and program has accepted the student. So if you applied for fellowship and/or receive, I think it would be fine to reach out about this, personally.

Although I’d note that when I’ve heard of this sort of thing occurring, I believe the suggestion has been floated by the faculty member first. If a professor isn’t interested in you as a prospective student, that may not change regardless of whether you receive a fellowship or not— The situation would only change if the interest is there but the funds are not

Edited January 30, 2018 by Stauce

[Stauce]

Broadly speaking though, I agree with the other people commenting that this is a bad idea. It’s like if you are interested in someone romantically and you try to convince or tell them that you know what they want better than they do. Not gonna work out. If it’s a tough pill to swallow that you won’t be working with a particular researcher, I would recommend just do your best to revise your expectations for the future. As John Lennon said, “Life is what happens while you’re making other plans”

[1|]010ls10o]

3 hours ago, Timemachines said:

My thought on the matter these days is that you don't want to try to convince your way into a space where you were not necessarily wanted. It is not to say that you are not qualified! however, trying to find your way into an interview is rarely achieved gracefully and sets you up for a very uncomfortable foundation with a PI. Think of it as forming a close relationship with them for 5-6 years - this should be a mutual exchange based on fit and chemistry (communication)...this is hard to achieve with someone that would potentially choose you as a plan B, or didn't choose you at all.

What I do think is good practice is to email your PI of interest requesting some feedback on your application and how it can be improved. 

Would you say the same about people on waitlists? I briefly thought about this and would lean toward not attending if I were waitlisted unless I loved everything other than the PI.

When would you email your PI of interest requesting feedback? Would you try to volunteer to work with them (obviously going for paid positions first) if you get rejected? Or would that be desperate too?

Thanks for your comments, y'all. 

[Timemachines]

Thats an excellent question but I would defer that to someone who has successfully navigated the waitlist/acceptance/rejection period post interviews (I am only interviewing at this time). Again, from my personal experience, I had emailed the PI ad nauseam after the interview  and didn't receive a response (which should have been my cue to stop emailing).  I learned the hard way, so I'd say that the more succinct and less disruptive you can keep your correspondence, the better. It is not uncommon for PIs to not respond to emails altogether following the interview, even if they sincerely enjoyed interviewing you, so if I had to do it all over again (and likely will after this interview period), I will only start inquiring about my status on the waitlist as the decision deadline approaches, and this will likely only be an exchange between my top choice (if waitlisted) and an acceptance at another program (i.e. a program is my top choice and I want to know where I am on the waitlist so that I can release my acceptance at another program). 

I honestly dont think it would hurt to discuss the chance of working under your PI as a volunteer if rejected. I had my best luck with feedback on ways in which my application could improve around march/april when interviews and decisions were more or less ironed out. I hope this all may help!

[AP]

Don't. You won't 'convince' them. Professors are dealing with a million things in any one day, Admissions being one of them. Your e-mail would not be seen in any positive light.

[Clinapp2017]

5 hours ago, 21ny14 said:

Would you say the same about people on waitlists? I briefly thought about this and would lean toward not attending if I were waitlisted unless I loved everything other than the PI.

When would you email your PI of interest requesting feedback? Would you try to volunteer to work with them (obviously going for paid positions first) if you get rejected? Or would that be desperate too?

Thanks for your comments, y'all. 

I don't think volunteering with the PI you want to work for is ever a good idea. Typically PIs take outside people with fresh ideas, not their own RAs, to be their new students.

 

Just food for thought - at least from a clinical psych perspective. 

[lewin]

18 hours ago, 21ny14 said:

Has anyone ever messaged a professor during a review process (either app review or post-interview) and managed to convince them to invite you for an interview or into the program? Wondering how viable of a plan this is. Would it be seen as annoying? Wondering if any impressions were changed.

Out of curiosity, what would you write? Just reiterate what's already in the application? Emphasize that you're really really interested? Most of the things that one could say at this point are contrived or cliche.

So, I don't think it's a good idea except for very rare circumstances where you can add significant new information (like a major national fellowship, as mentioned above).

[1|]010ls10o]

24 minutes ago, lewin said:

Out of curiosity, what would you write? Just reiterate what's already in the application? Emphasize that you're really really interested? Most of the things that one could say at this point are contrived or cliche.

So, I don't think it's a good idea except for very rare circumstances where you can add significant new information (like a major national fellowship, as mentioned above).

That's a good point. I'd have to think about that some more.

What about if your manuscript advanced? So, in-prep to submitted. In-revision to accepted. Accepted to published.

Or if your abstract was accepted for a presentation/poster at a big conference?

2 hours ago, Clinapp2017 said:

I don't think volunteering with the PI you want to work for is ever a good idea. Typically PIs take outside people with fresh ideas, not their own RAs, to be their new students.

 

Just food for thought - at least from a clinical psych perspective. 

That's interesting. It makes sense if a PI doesn't want a carbon copy (growth, different branches, etc), but wouldn't a PI also benefit on having a grad student that has the exact same interests so they can be a workhorse to boost the PI's reputation within the field?

Also, Clinapp, where are you getting your perspective from? You say typically, so did you survey other candidates about their less than perfect fit? Info from your DCT mentor? Current mentors? I believe you - I'm just wondering how that perspective formed. I'm personally wondering/speculating with little guidance, so I have little sense of what's appropriate for the process. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by 21ny14

[Clinapp2017]

@21ny14 - this is a thing basically said by direct comments with the old DCT mentor when we talked about dos/don’ts when i applied. Current mentor and other faculty have made similar comments. The goal is to have applicants diversify training. Working with the same mentor for a very long time only narrows your perspective. Faculty want someone who will work hard, but also ultimately become their own researcher who the faculty can be proud about training. You also don’t want a trainee clone bc then said clone will compete with you for the same grants and stuff...

[TakeruK]

29 minutes ago, 21ny14 said:

That's a good point. I'd have to think about that some more.

What about if your manuscript advanced? So, in-prep to submitted. In-revision to accepted. Accepted to published.

Or if your abstract was accepted for a presentation/poster at a big conference?

For manuscript advancement, the only advancement that matters is in-revision to accepted. in-prep to submitted is nice, but it's no guarantee that it will become a paper. Accepted to published is usually just a formality. However, while I would certainly advise students to let the admissions committee know about this change if decisions have not yet been made, if you already received a decision (either a rejection or a waitlist) then I do not think this is not enough to make a difference.

The significance of an abstracted accepted for a presentation at a big conference depends on how conference abstracts are valued in your field. In my field, they don't have much value, so this is not worth notifying the admissions committee even prior to decisions. But I know that in some fields, conference presentations instead of publications are the valuable thing, so then the above advice applies.

33 minutes ago, 21ny14 said:

That's interesting. It makes sense if a PI doesn't want a carbon copy (growth, different branches, etc), but wouldn't a PI also benefit on having a grad student that has the exact same interests so they can be a workhorse to boost the PI's reputation within the field?

Maybe. I have two thoughts about this. 1) It is not in the student's best interest to simply be a workhorse to boost the PI's reputation. Grad school is about training to become an independent scholar, not another "worker bee" in the PI's research hive. 2) I know many profs are reluctant to take on volunteers because of ethical reasons but also that many profs think of students as trainees that are a time demand rather than a time-saver due to the training and mentorship they would provide. Sometimes the limit is not that they don't have money to fund a student but they don't have time to mentor another student.

---

Ultimately, I think if you already received a negative decision from a particular school, the mature thing to do is to accept it and move on to another opportunity. Dealing with rejection sucks but it's a part of being in academia. It's especially sucky because most people only focus on their successes (see also: the "CV of failures"). But many very successful people now have dealt with rejection in the past (and probably even in the present). You may wish to apply to this school again in a future cycle (or for a future position) so demonstrating maturity and the ability to accept rejection is a good idea; trying to find a way to get in despite their decision will look desperate and reflect poorly on you.

Also, if a school does let someone have another shot because they pestered the profs enough, that wouldn't really be fair. As such, I doubt very many schools would be interested in reconsidering applications once they have made their decisions, barring extraordinary circumstances.

[lewin]

3 hours ago, TakeruK said:

For manuscript advancement, the only advancement that matters is in-revision to accepted.

Just wanted to second this. Submitting papers is positive because it shows you're getting work done, but ultimately that's not evidence of ability. Only an accepted paper is an independent judgment of the work's merit. I wouldn't update about conferences at all; in psychology, unless things are very different in some subfields, conference presentations are not nearly as prestigious as papers.

 

3 hours ago, TakeruK said:

Ultimately, I think if you already received a negative decision from a particular school, the mature thing to do is to accept it and move on to another opportunity.

Second this also, and as more general life advice. Talk to any hiring manager and you'll likely hear that calling to press the issue (or worse, argue!) after getting rejected for a job is a quick way to ensure you never get considered again. Grandpa's job search advice about marching into the manager's office and demanding a job (because it shows gumption!) are long over.