Unsolicited advice from the 2010-2011 admissions cohort

[HyacinthMacaw]

Hey folks,

I hope everyone is doing OK. I just thought it would be a good idea to create this resource for future cohorts. Feel free to chime in with wisdom, indignation, or both.

I'll take the liberty of getting the ball rolling by offering the following advice:

1. Get used to rejection. This is the law in academia.

2. Know beforehand whether your POI is accepting students. It would be a waste of money and time to apply to work with a POI who wasn't mentoring any students.

3. Practice self-compassion. Self-criticism achieves nothing in the long run.

4. Understand that your success probably matters less on where you go than on who you are. Ultimately, your passion, creativity, perseverance, originality and cogency of your ideas, technical proficiency, body of knowledge, and rapport with colleagues will play a larger role in your success than simply the program you attend.

5. Make sure that you have a good reason for applying to a program--as well as a good reason for not applying to one. There are lots of excellent programs that I bypassed for relatively trifling reasons.

6. Be patient!

7. Yes, fit (defined as compatibility of research interests) predicts success during the admissions process far better than generic excellence.

8. The admissions process is very capricious. Fit, need for students, faculty priority, and funding availability all govern admissions decisions. Recite the serenity prayer if it works for you.

That's it for now. Feel free to disagree. Wishing everyone all the best.

[neuropsych76]

Definitely agree with all of the above points, especially fit. I know my GRE scores were not the best but I applied to several programs (and got rejected) because (most likely) of a lack of fit. Really, I should have applied to less places looking back but I wanted to see if I could get in some more prestigious places with less fit.

It's funny, the one place I was officially accepted at so far was the first school I definitely knew I was applying to since it had such a great research match.

Edited March 10, 2011 by neuropsych76

[HyacinthMacaw]

Definitely agree with all of the above points, especially fit. I know my GRE scores were not the best but I applied to several programs (and got rejected) because (most likely) of a lack of fit. Really, I should have applied to less places looking back but I wanted to see if I could get in some more prestigious places with less fit.

It's funny, the one place I was officially accepted at so far was the first school I definitely knew I was applying to since it had such a great research match.

Same here! I have not been at all fortunate enough to field many offers, but I knew from the start that I could fit in one particular program like a glove. I recognized the opportunity before applying to collaborate with and extend the work of multiple faculty there. Lo and behold, they generously offered me admission to their program. Only when I visited the campus did I come to appreciate how much I could really benefit from the social support structure, too, and could therefore easily build rapport. So I realized I fit in this department on multiple levels: the work I wanted to do interested several faculty, and I could become very comfortable with the faculty and other grad students as colleagues.

So yes, I agree that we have an intuition from the outset about what programs are right for us, though of course this hinges on the adcoms' decisions. Had I been denied admission from this program, I would of course have been disappointed, but chances are I would have found another program (or another career) with which I could be just as happy. Nevertheless, a comfortable fit in a department makes life a lot easier.

[TheDude]

Take your GRE earlier rather than later.

Be on your letter writers early and LIE about the deadlines. Yes, I said lie. You're going to be the one developing an ulcer when they push it to the last second of the last day... save yourself the headache.

Spend a great deal of time on your statement of purpose, with a particularly shrewd eye on the letters going to your top choice.

It really is all about "fit" and luck. You can only do something about one of those items, and even then you still don't have much control in this whole process.

Save more money for applications than you think you might need.

How you treat the application process can be the first step towards the ridiculous "do or die" mentality that is readily apparent in a lot of grad students. THIS WHOLE PROCESS WILL NOT MAKE OR BREAK YOU!

You're not as smart as you think you are nor are you as smart as everyone told you. Realize this now and you'll be hurting a lot less in October. I'll have to revisit this prediction at a later date.

No one cares that University X hasn't contacted you back yet and that you are freaking out. Once you apply shut up and don't bug your SO, friends and family about all of this.

Expect rejections, and lots of them!

Don't visit this site so much. In hindsight it drove me nuts!!!!!!

Edited March 13, 2011 by TheDude

[GNC]

1. Email POI early on and see if they are taking students, but also recognize that things happen and along the way they might not take students. So plan ahead.

2. Ask about your POI's future work/grants... Sometimes their work is going in a new direction which isn't reflected in the literature you read.

3. Along the same lines see how much funding is available so you can save money if there is none.

4. Start your SOP early on before the whole application process so you can get feedback on it! A lot of schools just ask for a generic SOP so just answer the obvious questions.

5. Accept the fact that many programs do not take the 'best' student, but they take the students based on need for different professors. If you accept this early on the rejection won’t hurt as much.

6. This might be obvious but I've seen this situation numerous times now. During interviews don't be a **** to other applicants. Other grad students/professors will pick up on this and grad student’s feedback can and does influence decisions to some extent.

7. Attend any and all meet and greets.

8. If you get to the interview process congratulations! At this point you are among the best of the applicant pool, and even though your work is important, this is the short time you can show that you are a compatible person with your POI, other faculty and grad students. Don’t be uptight and focus just on what the faculty already know. Show how your social side, show that you are the perfect fit both academically and socially.

[moralresearcher]

Definitely email the POIs before hand to see whether they're taking a new student. Include a copy of your CV.

If you can, attend a conference. Extra points if you can present a poster. It's a great networking opportunity and it sets you apart from many other candidates.

Remember that yes, it sucks to wait, but in the grand scheme of your life the ~6 months spent applying and waiting are like nothing. And yes, this is our career, and yes, we really want it super bad, but if you don't get in, life WILL go on. I promise.

If you need to cry about a rejection, it's ok. But don't dwell. Don't bash the program or the POI on the internet. Don't be a child. Eat some Oreos, buy yourself some new shoes, and get on with your life.

Don't bother retaking the GRE unless you are more than 85% sure you can raise your score by at least 100 points, otherwise it isn't worth the cash.

If you're invited for an interview, familiarize yourself with articles that your POI cites often. This will enable you to speak intelligently about related topics. Have a few research ideas already prepared.

[GNC]

Don't bother retaking the GRE unless you are more than 85% sure you can raise your score by at least 100 points, otherwise it isn't worth the cash.

I second this 100%.

[honkycat1]

Do not attempt to make any predictions about the outcome of the process.

Its as random as it gets, you can't go in thinking "here are my safety schools and here are my long shots" because from my experience. I got waitlist/interviewed by 2 of my "long shots" and rejected by some of my best fit programs.

[TheDude]

I second this 100%.

I disagree. I retook the GRE and the extra 50 points put me above 1200, where I was previously below 1200, it also solidified a near perfect writing score. I think it is the circumstance. Had I scored a 1260 the first time I wouldn't have thought to retake it if it would mean getting to 1300. If you are under 1200 you need to retake it. Study the vocab early too! I thought I could focus on math, since it had been ages since I had dealt with much of the material on the GRE, and I neglected verbal. If I had balanced out my studies early I would have been over 1200 the first time very easily.

The other thing I'd add pertains to presenting at conferences: This is all great, and I did (if I remember correctly) 4-5 presentations, but I really didn't care to continue the research I was doing. The contacts that I met/would have met if I cared more, would have provided some pretty boring continuations of what I had been working on. The point is, don't let your research path as an undergraduate dictate your interests in certain graduate programs. Find a way to market the skills you obtained in a way that is useful to a particular lab. Sure, continuing on with what you examined with an advisor in your undergrad days is certainly playing your best hand, but it shouldn't be your only hand. A Ph.D. program is 5 years of your life. I realized this after I blew nearly 2K applying to schools. I'd gladly take back most of that money I spent applying to programs I didn't want to attend. I found 3 programs I loved, 5 I wasn't in love with. I should have just played my hand and applied to the 3 I'd be happy with attending. Yes, there is more risk with that, but you are talking about your personal happiness.

I also second the notion of "no predictions." One of my letter writers wanted me to delineate my "safety schools, pretty certain schools and reaches." I remember writing to another letter writer who had been through the grad process in the early 2000's, and asking, "how the f*ck am I suppose to to know what a safety school is?" You don't know, and you really just have to do your best through this whole process and say the hell with it.

This is a nice thread idea!

Edited March 15, 2011 by TheDude

[secretly_yes]

If you have three really good recommenders, use those for everything.

I tried to use different recommenders, and I don't think that worked well. For one school I used a former supervisor at a research project that was an alumna of the school. I am pretty sure that the letter she wrote for me was not half as strong as a letter another professor wrote. For another school I had a professor who had also served on the state's board of education for two terms. That also didn't work.

Out of the seven people that wrote letters for me there was only one combination that yielded acceptances (ie, I was admitted into both programs where both of those professors submitted letters.)

I think it's more about how much your recommenders believe in you and want you to succeed and less about how famous or well connected they are.

[HyacinthMacaw]

If you have three really good recommenders, use those for everything.

I tried to use different recommenders, and I don't think that worked well. For one school I used a former supervisor at a research project that was an alumna of the school. I am pretty sure that the letter she wrote for me was not half as strong as a letter another professor wrote. For another school I had a professor who had also served on the state's board of education for two terms. That also didn't work.

Out of the seven people that wrote letters for me there was only one combination that yielded acceptances (ie, I was admitted into both programs where both of those professors submitted letters.)

I think it's more about how much your recommenders believe in you and want you to succeed and less about how famous or well connected they are.

That's really interesting, and I think that shows a lot of gumption to ask seven different people for letters of reference!

Re: the GRE, I've read that 1200 is a good benchmark. Raising your score from 1100 to 1200 will probably pay more dividends than raising your score from 1400 to 1500. The definition of a score that is "good enough" to warrant you further consideration varies from program to program, but I can't imagine that a score of 1200 will disqualify you from any program provided your other credentials, including fit, are extraordinary.

How do you all feel about GRE prep courses? That is probably a common concern. I did invest in a Kaplan classroom course because I felt it would provide me the impetus to study; I would not have studied as hard on my own. That said, I found the classroom lectures less helpful than the print and online course materials. Having access to tons of tutorials, exercises, and practice exams meant that I prepared myself pretty much as best I could. There are options to purchase only the print and online materials without classroom lectures, and I would recommend these if would like to invest in a prep course but don't have the money for a complete module of 9 classroom lectures.

I was unemployed at the time I started studying for the GRE (and am still unemployed), so I was concerned about ponying up the full $1200. I reasoned, however, that the GRE was probably going to be the most important exam I'll ever have to take. It therefore makes sense to spare no expense when preparing for this exam, or at least it makes sense to spend what money you have wisely. I'm sure there are lots of people who have done very well without prep courses, and all the power to them. I needed the prep course, and I was happy that I invested in one.

[GNC]

I disagree. I retook the GRE and the extra 50 points put me above 1200, where I was previously below 1200, it also solidified a near perfect writing score. I think it is the circumstance. Had I scored a 1260 the first time I wouldn't have thought to retake it if it would mean getting to 1300. If you are under 1200 you need to retake it. Study the vocab early too! I thought I could focus on math, since it had been ages since I had dealt with much of the material on the GRE, and I neglected verbal. If I had balanced out my studies early I would have been over 1200 the first time very easily.

The poster had said 'unless you believe you are going to boost it at least 100 points'. The point I got from it is that if you got a 1160 don't retake it if you think you are going to only increase it 40 points to get the 1200 mark because things can go wrong which should be accounted for. If you aim for at least 100 you give yourself room for error and have a better chance to increase your score.

Although the GRE is a big part of the application I have to disagree with the "under 1200" line and that you would have to retake it. I agree if we are talking clinical(I'm developmental), but disagree otherwise. I took it the first time and got 1160 I believe. Took it a second time and did slightly worse going on the assumption that I could raise my score to 1200. But to be honest it didn't really hinder me from getting interviews for doctoral programs and only one place ever mentioned my GRE score during the interview process. I think the saying that programs weed you out if your GRE is below X score is overblown (not that some programs don't do this). If your entire package looks great a blemish here and there won't screw you over in my opinion. But 1200 is a good benchmark.

Again, clinical is another story and the 1200+ line in my opinion is more serious.

A tip for future applicants: once you have submitted your applications don't go over your SOP, writing samples, CV etc. because you will find errors and that will drive you crazy. Put your time into something else!

Edited March 15, 2011 by GNC

[neuropsych76]

The poster had said 'unless you believe you are going to boost it at least 100 points'. The point I got from it is that if you got a 1160 don't retake it if you think you are going to only increase it 40 points to get the 1200 mark because things can go wrong which should be accounted for. If you aim for at least 100 you give yourself room for error and have a better chance to increase your score.

Although the GRE is a big part of the application I have to disagree with the "under 1200" line and that you would have to retake it. I agree if we are talking clinical(I'm developmental), but disagree otherwise. I took it the first time and got 1160 I believe. Took it a second time and did slightly worse going on the assumption that I could raise my score to 1200. But to be honest it didn't really hinder me from getting interviews for doctoral programs and only one place ever mentioned my GRE score during the interview process. I think the saying that programs weed you out if your GRE is below X score is overblown (not that some programs don't do this). If your entire package looks great a blemish here and there won't screw you over in my opinion. But 1200 is a good benchmark.

Again, clinical is another story and the 1200+ line in my opinion is more serious.

A tip for future applicants: once you have submitted your applications don't go over your SOP, writing samples, CV etc. because you will find errors and that will drive you crazy. Put your time into something else!

Definitely agree with all of this. I'm another anecdote of sub 1200 not keeping me from interviews. Clinical is different because they have SO many applicants they need a screening tool. But for experimental programs, research experience + fit is what really matters assuming the rest is fine.

[franks98]

Definitely agree with all of this. I'm another anecdote of sub 1200 not keeping me from interviews. Clinical is different because they have SO many applicants they need a screening tool. But for experimental programs, research experience + fit is what really matters assuming the rest is fine.

I agree with this. With the school that accepted me (a relatively unknown but strong program with a well known POI), the POI told me early in the process that he completely disregards GRE scores unless they are extremely low (below 450 on each section) or extremely high (above 750 on each section), but that he did look at GPA much more carefully. I scored just below 1200 and thought that the GRE was the biggest waste of time an energy ever. I got wait-listed at two top 30-40 schools and got an interview (and then a rejection! grrrr!) at a top notch program despite my relatively poor performance on the GRE. Strong letters, strong SOP, good grades, and making meaningful connections with POIs prior to submitting apps is where it's at (yo). Though, I imagine that some programs do "paper screen" based on GRE before even looking at an app. Those programs can go eff themselves, frankly ... i kid, i kid...

[GNC]

I am glad a number of us sub 1200 folks are chiming in. I remember browsing through some forums and people would complain about 1300+ scores or near perfect 1600 and it honestly made me feel incompetent.

Sub 1200 is not a death sentance.

Edited March 16, 2011 by GNC

[psychapplicant2011]

Re: GRE Scores

Most programs do not have official cut-offs. Scores that are considered low depend in large part on the program you are applying. With this said, I think there is something right about the magical number 1200. Yes, you stand a shot of getting interviews with scores below 1200 (and it might even been a good shot depending on your target programs), but, anecdotal evidence aside, if you do not want to run the risk of getting flagged because of your GRE score no matter where you apply, then 1200 should be the minimum score for which you should be shooting.

If we want to get away from minimal scores and talk about competitive scores, again, there is going to be a wide variation in what is considered competitive. At most of the best (and many of the better) programs a score of at least 1350 is considered competitive. But again, depending on your target school, much lower scores might be considered competitive.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the importance placed on your GRE is going to vary widely from program to program. Do NOT be suckered into the anecdotal evidence that GRE's do not matter. While the anecdote that professor X at prestigious University Y really doesn't look at the GREs may be true, this does not mean that your next 10 POIs do not take the GREs seriously.

As a rough rule of thumb: 1200 minimum, 1350 very competitive. If you score below 1200, I say retake it. If you score above 1200, I would just sit on that score unless (1) you think you can significantly improve your score and (2) your target schools are some of the toughest to get into.

Again, all this advice needs to be taken with the caveat that what is considered "low" or "competitive" varies from program to program. If you are just trying to get into an applied counseling program at an average state school, then 1100 might be considered solid (and 1200 maybe even impressive). But if you are trying to be competitive in a research-orientated program at an upper mid-tier program (or better), then the 1200/1350 (rough) rule of thumb probably applies to you.

[lewin]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the importance placed on your GRE is going to vary widely from program to program. Do NOT be suckered into the anecdotal evidence that GRE's do not matter. While the anecdote that professor X at prestigious University Y really doesn't look at the GREs may be true, this does not mean that your next 10 POIs do not take the GREs seriously.

Bingo. When predicting first-year graduate school grades, the GRE is just as predictive as undergraduate GPA (r = ~.30). So it's reasonably informative. (Obviously there is more to graduate school than good grades, but it's an easy outcome measure. And the GRE score range of people admitted is restricted, which probably underestimates the potential correlation.)

[GNC]

No one said GRE's don’t matter, because that is false and they do matter to some extent. We are saying that the GRE's will not be the death of your application if you didn't score amazingly. Furthermore, we are reiterating the fact that you are a package and not just a 4 digit number representing your GRE's which is the end all be all.

Is it a competitive process? Absolutely. Do better GRE scores help? Probably. Will a blemish in your overall package kill your chances? I think not.

I personally think that applicants including myself view(ed) the GRE as an application killer if you don’t do great. But this is not true.

[lewin]

No one said GRE's don’t matter, because that is false and they do matter to some extent. We are saying that the GRE's will not be the death of your application if you didn't score amazingly. Furthermore, we are reiterating the fact that you are a package and not just a 4 digit number representing your GRE's which is the end all be all.

Is it a competitive process? Absolutely. Do better GRE scores help? Probably. Will a blemish in your overall package kill your chances? I think not.

I personally think that applicants including myself view(ed) the GRE as an application killer if you don’t do great. But this is not true.

I agree with you completely. But I think implicit in some of the GRE-bashing that goes on around here is that the GRE's aren't predictive, or don't signify anything about candidates, or are something that only stuffy, rule-bound programs adhere to (irrationally) because they prefer black-and-white thinking. They're not the be-all-end-all, but GRE scores actually mean something. What does it say about a person if they are below average (for example) at grade 9 math, can't string together a persuasive argument, or find the meaning in a written passage? This is what low scores suggest, unless there is strong evidence elsewhere that indicates otherwise.

[moralresearcher]

I agree with you completely. But I think implicit in some of the GRE-bashing that goes on around here is that the GRE's aren't predictive, or don't signify anything about candidates, or are something that only stuffy, rule-bound programs adhere to (irrationally) because they prefer black-and-white thinking. They're not the be-all-end-all, but GRE scores actually mean something. What does it say about a person if they are below average (for example) at grade 9 math, can't string together a persuasive argument, or find the meaning in a written passage? This is what low scores suggest, unless there is strong evidence elsewhere that indicates otherwise.

I would also go so far as to say that in a lot of cases, it shows a lack of willingness to prepare. At least, if I were a committee member, and I saw someone come in with a low score (meaning your percentile rank was below 50% ), I would say to my self either this person is not that qualified (see quoted text), a terrible test taker (which is not that desirable in a candidate, either), or didn't care enough to take some practice tests to ensure they'll have a respectable score and none of those are really a candidate that I want. I'm not saying that anyone below a 1200 isn't capable, but I am saying that they're less desirable than someone who can show up and perform and jump through the necessary hoops, so they'd darn well better have great letters and great research ideas and great everything else, even more so than the candidates that can jump through the hoops. The GRE is a part of the application that is largely under the control of the applicant and the score is largely a reflection of the effort s/he put into obtaining it. Sorry if that's harsh, but it's pretty true.

**yes, I know that this doesn't account for people who have learning disabilities and such, but I'd say the majority of candidates don't have that issue and those that do can address it in their SOP.

[A. sesquipedale]

1. If you have 10 hours to spend applying to grad programs and can either spend 1 hour on each program, totaling 10 programs, or spend 2 hours on each program and really learn more about your POIs' research and are better able to express fit as a result, apply to 5.

My educated guess based on my experience, is that a crappy application that isn't tailored very well doesn't get who you are applying to work with very excited about the thought of bringing you on.

[GNC]

I would also go so far as to say that in a lot of cases, it shows a lack of willingness to prepare. At least, if I were a committee member, and I saw someone come in with a low score (meaning your percentile rank was below 50% ), I would say to my self either this person is not that qualified (see quoted text), a terrible test taker (which is not that desirable in a candidate, either), or didn't care enough to take some practice tests to ensure they'll have a respectable score and none of those are really a candidate that I want. I'm not saying that anyone below a 1200 isn't capable, but I am saying that they're less desirable than someone who can show up and perform and jump through the necessary hoops, so they'd darn well better have great letters and great research ideas and great everything else, even more so than the candidates that can jump through the hoops. The GRE is a part of the application that is largely under the control of the applicant and the score is largely a reflection of the effort s/he put into obtaining it. Sorry if that's harsh, but it's pretty true.

**yes, I know that this doesn't account for people who have learning disabilities and such, but I'd say the majority of candidates don't have that issue and those that do can address it in their SOP.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly.

I practiced my *** off, and do not consider myself stupid. But for one reason or another the verbal section got the better of me each time. I put in my time for the GRE's and I believe I am/was just as qualified as anyone else despite the fact that I didn't pull over 1200. And for what it is worth getting about 1160 you rank about the 62% percentile. Not below the 50th.

Quite frankly I believe that my work as an undergraduate, the conference presentations, my research and my papers in review mean more than some exam that tests me on esoteric terminology and their usage. The majority of these words, I will never use again.

I agree that you shouldn't take it blindly but saying that the GRE scores reflects the amount of effort someone put is completely false.

I agree with you completely. But I think implicit in some of the GRE-bashing that goes on around here is that the GRE's aren't predictive, or don't signify anything about candidates, or are something that only stuffy, rule-bound programs adhere to (irrationally) because they prefer black-and-white thinking. They're not the be-all-end-all, but GRE scores actually mean something. What does it say about a person if they are below average (for example) at grade 9 math, can't string together a persuasive argument, or find the meaning in a written passage? This is what low scores suggest, unless there is strong evidence elsewhere that indicates otherwise.

This I can agree with.

Edited March 17, 2011 by GNC

[cogscipixie]

The poster had said 'unless you believe you are going to boost it at least 100 points'. The point I got from it is that if you got a 1160 don't retake it if you think you are going to only increase it 40 points to get the 1200 mark because things can go wrong which should be accounted for. If you aim for at least 100 you give yourself room for error and have a better chance to increase your score.

Although the GRE is a big part of the application I have to disagree with the "under 1200" line and that you would have to retake it. I agree if we are talking clinical(I'm developmental), but disagree otherwise. I took it the first time and got 1160 I believe. Took it a second time and did slightly worse going on the assumption that I could raise my score to 1200. But to be honest it didn't really hinder me from getting interviews for doctoral programs and only one place ever mentioned my GRE score during the interview process. I think the saying that programs weed you out if your GRE is below X score is overblown (not that some programs don't do this). If your entire package looks great a blemish here and there won't screw you over in my opinion. But 1200 is a good benchmark.

Again, clinical is another story and the 1200+ line in my opinion is more serious.

A tip for future applicants: once you have submitted your applications don't go over your SOP, writing samples, CV etc. because you will find errors and that will drive you crazy. Put your time into something else!

I completely agree. If you're applying to an experimental program, yes, GRE scores are calculated into a prospective student's score but they're only a small piece of the package pie. If the student is a very strong research fit, shows that they can do the work (presentations at national conferences, an honors thesis, independent study), and has taken the initiative to immerse themselves in a topic that energizes them, then that is much more important for looking at how they can match up that potential candidate against others. You have to have the smarts, but you also have to learn to apply that knowledge. That's why it's so crucial nowadays to have directed undergraduate or independent research under your belt so you know what you're getting yourself into, in addition to figuring out your research niche. I was a 2nd-time applicant this year, took 2 years in between to work in a well-respected R1 institution's reading and language lab, but that was all on top of the independent research I did all 4-years of undergrad. I didn't bother taking my GRE over since I was a borderline 1200 score and I thought the rest of my CV would speak for itself. I got multiple interviews with schools that were all strong research fits, and places I could see myself develop and excel as a scientist. Don't give up hope if you don't make it through the cut the first time. Make sure you figure out your research niche prior to applying, get more hands-on experience (the best you can!), and apply to places you will be happy to attend. It makes such a difference.

[lewin]

I'm a few cohorts old, but here's my advice: Develop patience. Be able to delay gratification.

I see many applicants on the forums anxious because they haven't heard from this or that program. They want to email the program to assuage their nerves. Or people in the who are constantly emailing to see when the awards will be announced. This is a bad trait.

(I'm addressing people who can't handle waiting, and not the rare person who needs this information in order to make an urgent decision.)

Stop being neurotic! Stop depending on other people to make you feel better because it will only get worse in graduate school. My advisor is very good, but sometimes I go long stretches of time without getting feedback. Or, we submit papers and won't hear back for months. You will constantly be waiting for people to get back to you.

You have to be able to put worries out of your head and concentrate on what's important now because being neurotic is detrimental in a number of ways. First, it makes you less productive because you're distracted. Second, it can actually harm your outcomes because nobody (e.g., scholarship administrators, grad admissions assistants, journal editors) likes to be nagged.

[db2290]

My advice:

- Understand that the admission process is unpredictable. Reading these boards, especially, highlighted that many others had more appropriate experience than I did (an abundance of conference presentations, publications and years of research experience). Yet I fortunately got into my top choice because I felt I brought quite a unique background to the program and therefore stood out. Which leads me to.....

- Start thinking of your graduate school applications a YEAR (or more) on advance. I know not everyone has this luxury but my 'dream' school and program (that I was admitted to) was something that I had considered for a very very long time in advance. I was actually a bit obsessed by it. This guided my research activities and my work experiences for a couple of years before. Having a good 'fit' is more than just a claim on a SOP but something that should ideally be obvious and undeniable from your experiences until that point.

- GREs are a necessary evil. There was a debate earlier in this thread about whether preparation would lead to a better score. I think that until a certain point in the test (approx the 700 mark for both Quant and Verbal), practice really does help boost your score. I think anything above that and it is purely down to pot luck if there is a highly obscure word which you are completely flummoxed by. That said, I would practice early and incorporate revision into train journeys, waiting for a bus and so on. I had an app for my iphone which I would use to test me on words at any available opportunity. This is especially pertinent if you are working and busy when you should be studying. Doing 2 hours a week 8 months in advance will be of more benefit than cramming like a madman two weeks before and will lead to better recall. Although you could do both of course

- Revise your SOP over and over again. And start early!

- Don't assume that safety schools will definitely take you and reach schools are unlikely to. I got accepted to my first choice and rejected from a number of the others. Go figure.

- But lastly, and most importantly, ignore everything I said No seriously, the state of higher education funding at the moment and the huge number of grad applicants means that admissions decisions will be made on the most arbitrary of reasons and I know from my own admissions journey that you mustn't take it personally or get down about it. There are always other options or next year, and don't let it for a second cast doubt on your aspirations or ability.

Edited March 18, 2011 by db2290