Advice solicited: adviser fit

[MindOverMatter]

Hello all,

I applied to four PhD programs this year for my first cycle. Completed interview weekend (four interviews) at one department, and while my main POI personally recommended me for admission, I was placed as #3 on the waitlist. Sadly, a place did not open up for me this year.

I solicited feedback from the graduate admissions director, and she mentioned I should increase the specificity of my research interests and to consider adviser fit. I think this is good advice but I'm just confused a bit about the latter. My POI and I shared general interests in emotion, self-regulation, cognitive-affective processes -- the specifics of our research vary quite a bit. She focuses on memory; I proposed to research social functioning. Despite this, she seemed very gung-ho about supporting development of my own specific interests and said the department would be an "excellent" place for me.

For those who successfully placed in programs or are already attending - I was wondering how closely your interests match those of your adviser? Are you interested in the same general domains - or do you pursue the same specific research questions? Maybe provide examples of how you are alike and where you differ (if you do).

Thanks in advance for your advice and feedback. This will help me when approaching prospective advisers the next go-around.

[TakeruK]

Not in your field, but something that is generally true: sometimes the feedback given when requested is extremely generic and may not actually constitute good/useful feedback! Sometimes, statements like what you got are general catch-alls some people give when they don't really know what to say. Schools almost always have way more candidates/applicants that are qualified and suitable for the program than there are spots. So #3 on the waitlist indicates to me that you likely met all of their requirements and so there may not be much more feedback they can give.

However, if you do think this is sincere feedback, then I would also consider that perhaps the committee thought:

a. You had good fit with one POI but not with the rest of the department / other potential advisor fit. Generally, it's a good idea to apply to places where you can fit with more than one advisor since you never know what could happen. And on a related note, it may be that the advisor did think you were a great fit but there was someone else who was a better fit so they picked the other person instead. Having more than one good fit means more chances.

b. You did have great fit and your advisor thought so too and wanted you admitted. But your advisor may have little say in the process and so the committee could only rely on your application to determine the fit. Maybe you didn't express this fit well enough in the application. I suggest this because it sounds to me like you are focussing your question on the absolute goodness of fit as known to you (or other applicants). But the admission process doesn't know about what you or the advisor thinks, it only knows about what is on paper.

[healthpsych]

I was a strong research fit at the programs that accepted me. I do research in a fairly small area, and it seems like these particular faculty really liked applicants with relevant experience since it’s somewhat rare (compared to e.g. depression or anxiety). I applied to other labs where my interests/experience weren’t as compatible and did not get interviews or offers. That being said, the research I’m currently working on is quite different from anything my advisor has done previously, although still in the same broad area. My advisor is open to exploring new ideas as long as they’re in her general area of expertise. 

I would recommend asking for feedback from your POI herself rather than the admissions director. It sounds like she wanted to admit you, so the explanation of advisor fit might just be a generic explanation that they give to everyone. It could be that your POI didn’t get a student because too many faculty wanted to accept students, or a funding issue, or any number of other reasons. 

[MindOverMatter]

@TakeruK - Thanks very much. I do think this feedback is specific to me because she did cite other particulars about my expressed interests. Given this, I think you raise an interesting point about me failing to address fit adequately on paper. This may be true. I was more focused on convincing my POI that I'm not sure I translated this well for the committee - an important takeaway for next time.

@healthpsych - Thanks for your feedback as well. Given your notes, it seems it is possible to do research that is related but maybe tangential to what my adviser does. I'm sure there's a range based on what any particular adviser is willing to accept. You're right - my POI might have more insight where the graduate director does not. I'll ask her as well.

[MarineBluePsy]

My research interests don't perfectly align with my advisors and during my application cycle we discussed this.  Essentially we're both interested in the same  broad population, lets suppose that's adolescents.  Their specific focus is therapeutic interventions for adolescents (mostly anxiety and depression) in the community, whereas I am interested in adolescents with severe mental illnesses (mostly assessment and quality of life).  I also made it clear in my application materials and during interviews that I didn't want to just focus on my own thing, but wanted to contribute to their studies as well as those of other lab members and have broad adolescent knowledge and experience as well.  My advisor has successfully mentored a variety of students in the past with adolescent interests that were not a perfect match to theirs and assured me that I could be supported as well.  That has been so far from the truth that my research experience has been miserable.  So ultimately there is no guarantee that everything will end up great regardless of how much fit is discussed.

[Sandmaster]

Not in your field either, however, I also applied to places where more than one professor could support and advise me. There was only one of the (twelve professors) that was an exact perfect match, but the rest were fairly close and I felt there was a decent overlap between interests. In most of my cases, it was the same research but pointed at a different question, or was another paradigm of who the research was directed towards. My results were interesting because I got interviewed at all but one institution (two professors), which led to a denied obviously. Another institution (two professors) where I felt the fit was a little bit more of a stretch, I got interviewed and placed on the wait-list and ultimately denied as well. The other four institutions, the fit was very close with the potential advisors and I received acceptances to all four of the great fit schools which varied on ranking (#1 ranked to #67 in my field). Ultimately I choose to go to the school where I felt the research fit was the closest and I felt the department could support my research goals the best. I honestly think the fit is so important that you really apply to work with professor(s), not so much the institution. I got into some insanely competitive and highly ranked/prestigious programs with mediocre credentials because of the fit I think. Fit is also important to you as a potential student too, so applying to places you see yourself getting support is also important. My top choice wasn't the #1 ranked program because I felt the slightly lower ranked program I chose would support me better and have a better environment.

I hope my experience helps. I think as long as it is in the same general idea it is good, but the closer the better chance you have. And as Takeruk said, usually apply to places with more than one advisor if possible (though depending on how rare your research interest is, that may not be possible).

Edited April 27, 2018 by Sandmaster

[ZeChocMoose]

The one place that I didn't get into for my PhD admission cycle was the program where I only fit one of the faculty member's research interests and the program did not emphasize my preferred methodology.  It was disappointing at the time - but looking back on it, the program would have been a terrible fit for me which the admission committee happen to see before I did.

To answer your other question, my advisor and I have very similar research interests, but I tend to study policies at the local and state level and she tends to study them at the federal level. In general, we study a bunch of the same topics though just in different systems/environments/contexts.

I understand how disappointing it can be to not get in the first time around especially since you came really close.  It took me two times before I received a PhD acceptance. If you have been communicating with your POI, I would also reach out to her and ask her how you can strengthen your application for next year. I also recommend listing a couple faculty that you would like to work with because eventually you'll need to form a committee of a couple faculty members for your dissertation.

[MindOverMatter]

Everyone, thanks for more feedback! Really appreciated. ? This really helps a lot!

On 4/27/2018 at 11:33 AM, ZeChocMoose said:

I understand how disappointing it can be to not get in the first time around especially since you came really close.  It took me two times before I received a PhD acceptance. 

@ZeChocMoose - thank you! It felt like the rugged was pulled from under me. I was really hoping it was my time. With everyone's help, I have more perspective. I think I was aiming somewhat blindly before. Appreciate your sympathy and well wishes!