I finished my bachelor's two years early. Good or bad?

[adav42]

I started college at 18, but finished when I was 20. I'm taking a year off (to go to a different college for fun...) and now I'm applying to psychology doctoral programs.

I have research experience. My GPA is a 3.7, I have a 167 Verbal score and, unfortunately, a 150 Quant score. Apparently, this is a 1330 when converted.

Is finishing early going to make a difference, good or bad, especially since with a year off, I'm not that far off from a normal application age?

Edited December 13, 2011 by adav42

[gellert]

Neutral, perhaps tilting toward negative. It might seem like you rushed through college and didn't take the time to have any "life experience." Apparently that's a fairly-frequently cited downside to all straight-from-UG applicants, that they don't have enough "life experience."

TBH the major downside to this is that there's no way you were in college long enough to have the requisite amount of research experience to be competitive. So that's the real question to ask yourself. How many years of research experience do you have, and of what kind?

[BlueCamel]

Hey when I first came to college, I wanted to graduate in 3 years and then go to grad school afterwards. My profs all rejected the ideas, and my advisor simply told me that if I do it in 3 years, I would not be able to get into grad school for sure because I wouldnt have enough research experience. So I guess it depends on how much research experience you actually have... (for me, I got ALOT more experience and better LOR in 4 years than trying to graduate in 3).

[yubby]

im a year younger than people in my year - from what im told by my supervisors, it has no effect on your chances of admission

maybe if they are deciding between two otherwise similar applicants, but if you're stats are good i wouldn't worry.

[Eigen]

It has nothing to do with age... It's the amount of experience.

With two years, you might have the degree, but you wont have as many upper level courses as electives as you would in 4 years, and the most research experience you can have is two years, assuming you started when you started college.

That will put you at a disadvantage when you're being compared to people with similar stats but a longer track record, more coursework, and a couple of more years of research experience.

[adav42]

It has nothing to do with age... It's the amount of experience.

With two years, you might have the degree, but you wont have as many upper level courses as electives as you would in 4 years, and the most research experience you can have is two years, assuming you started when you started college.

I did start research the semester I started college, and I researched through the winter and summer so I have a full two years of experience, and by the time I'm done with my gap year, it will be three years. I don't know how much is average or recommended, but I filled up the two years I had.

re: classwork--I upper level courses as electives are what I have. The courses I missed, because I got 30 credits of Advanced Placement from high school that knocked off my gen eds, are the irrelevant 100 and 200 level courses.

Edited December 14, 2011 by adav42

[pheonixx]

I could have graduated early but stuck around to do a senior honors thesis. I'd say this was the most influential and important experience of my undergraduate career. I believe it's also the strongest part of my application. If you have the option, I'd definitely recommend sticking around for another year even if you're only doing a senior thesis. I had all my prereqs out of the way so I took some random social science classes to fill up my credits.

[LuckyCat]

It's difficult to say given that it's unclear the quality of research experience you've accumulated. I know of 3 students who've been admitted to competitive/top Ph.D. programs who graduated early (i.e., within 3 years due to AP credits) or at a young age (i.e., started college at 15 and finished at 18). All 3 were viewed as competitive based on the quality of the research experience they had accumulated, the quality of their undergrad program/training, and their recommenders speaking to their maturity. These students had simultaneously been lab managers while in undergrad and completed honors/senior theses and/or had some type of extra research experience (i.e., attended an intensive summer research program). Good luck!

[neuropsych76]

I agree with the above.

Of course it doesn't matter that you completed your degree in two years. What does matter is that you'll have less life /research experience then most of the other people in your program.

I could have graduated early but I packed my 4 years of undergrad with tons of research experience and even though i went strait to grad school, i didn't feel like i was behind there. However, it would have been nice to take some time off beforehand and do non school things

[Eigen]

I could have graduated early but stuck around to do a senior honors thesis. I'd say this was the most influential and important experience of my undergraduate career. I believe it's also the strongest part of my application. If you have the option, I'd definitely recommend sticking around for another year even if you're only doing a senior thesis. I had all my prereqs out of the way so I took some random social science classes to fill up my credits.

I stuck around an extra year to do my honors thesis too, and think it made me way more competitive. No one cared that I took 5 years, but they all liked that I had that extra research intensive year, as well as graduate electives in my field and a couple of closely related ones.

[ClinicalPsyPhD]

I agree that how fast you graduated doesn't count against you assuming you have enough research experience. I noticed a few people commenting about their honors theses, so I figured I should add my input to the group as well since I have a different background.

I graduated in 3 years, with 1.5 years of undergraduate research experience, but I didn't do an honors thesis. Instead I worked full time at a clinical laboratory (that focused on my research interests) for a couple of years. I think that worked in my favor for the reasons stated above -- it showed "life experience" and I improved my research experience as well.

The question is -- how much of this "year off" is dedicated to research? Also, do you have some letter of rec writers in mind yet? I think you can pull off the early graduation and young application age if you can prove that the reason behind this seemingly rushed track is your true commitment to the field.