2015 - Social Psych

[MyDogHasAPhD]

I know this often a controversial answer, but the reputation of your alma mater does seem to impact your chances. With the average acceptance rate hovering around 5-10% in social psych, it's not at all surprising to see most labs filled to the brim with Ivy-league grads. Maybe it's just my list of schools, but state uni folks were hard to come by. 

 

And I can't bash the apparent practice completely. Ivy and Ivy-esque admissions are so low in comparison to most state universities that our GPAs are incomparable. My undergrad uni has around a 50-50 acceptance rate - and while I did get into better-rated schools, adcoms won't know that by looking at my app. Therefore, a greater number of criteria are needed to assess my capabilities. Unfortunately, I too have no pubs, just posters.

 

I also believe that the rep of your undergrad university does hold some weight. I had a professor basically tell me that because I go to a relatively unheard of state school, that I'd really need to stand out to even make it through the first round of cuts at some of the more prestigious programs. A friend of mine with lower GREs, GPA, and far less research experience went to Yale for his undergraduate degree and ended up with three interviews and an acceptance into three PhD programs for Clinical, one of which was Arizona State, because one of his letter writers was an ASU Psych PhD grad. This is all one big game, I am starting to realize. 

[Gepetto13]

I also believe that the rep of your undergrad university does hold some weight. I had a professor basically tell me that because I go to a relatively unheard of state school, that I'd really need to stand out to even make it through the first round of cuts at some of the more prestigious programs. A friend of mine with lower GREs, GPA, and far less research experience went to Yale for his undergraduate degree and ended up with three interviews and an acceptance into three PhD programs for Clinical, one of which was Arizona State, because one of his letter writers was an ASU Psych PhD grad. This is all one big game, I am starting to realize. 

 

Exactly.  The reality is that a large part of this is who know you, and who they know. Merit comes into play, of course, but it's not just merit.  Plus, different programs/professors will not interview/admit candidates for very questionable reasons that have nothing to do with any objective criteria. It's not exactly peachy in academia...

[TXInstrument11]

I also believe that the rep of your undergrad university does hold some weight. I had a professor basically tell me that because I go to a relatively unheard of state school, that I'd really need to stand out to even make it through the first round of cuts at some of the more prestigious programs. A friend of mine with lower GREs, GPA, and far less research experience went to Yale for his undergraduate degree and ended up with three interviews and an acceptance into three PhD programs for Clinical, one of which was Arizona State, because one of his letter writers was an ASU Psych PhD grad. This is all one big game, I am starting to realize. 

I've only had one professor shoot it straight with me on this and she wasn't one of my letter writers, unfortunately. I know my recommenders mean well, but sometimes we all need the unvarnished truth, even if it's very discouraging.

 

I started out knowing that undergrad rep mattered and was subsequently talked out of it. I wish I'd never listened because I would have taken more precautions with shoring up research exp and been more aggressive about contacting faculty.

 

Of course, a notable letter-writer can help you. I'm not disputing that. I wish I were going into the discipline of my current PI because his name alone could open a lot of doors for me. I've seen it happen before with former TAs who would not have had a chance with adcoms otherwise. 

Edited January 28, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[coffeeaddict29]

That is the conundrum.  You need publications to get into grad school, but grad school is (really) the place where you get publications.

I know. and then sucky part is that getting pubs is all about luck. Doesn't say anything about your ability. I got lucky- the grad student that I worked with in undergrad felt bad for me and took me on a publication. But this doesn't happen most of the time.

[coffeeaddict29]

I know this often a controversial answer, but the reputation of your alma mater does seem to impact your chances. With the average acceptance rate hovering around 5-10% in social psych, it's not at all surprising to see most labs filled to the brim with Ivy-league grads. Maybe it's just my list of schools, but state uni folks were hard to come by.

And I can't bash the apparent practice completely. Ivy and Ivy-esque admissions are so low in comparison to most state universities that our GPAs are incomparable. My undergrad uni has around a 50-50 acceptance rate - and while I did get into better-rated schools, adcoms won't know that by looking at my app. Therefore, a greater number of criteria are needed to assess my capabilities. Unfortunately, I too have no pubs, just posters.

I graduated from UC Berkeley, worked in two of the most popular labs there, and I still didn't get one in person interview. So I doubt that the reputation of the school matters.Oh and I have worked in labs since my freshman year. In terms of research experience, I have tons. But no one matters how hard I work or that I took every opportunity granted to me or that I have a ton of posters (12). Edited January 28, 2015 by coffeeaddict29

[TXInstrument11]

I graduated from UC Berkeley, worked in two of the most popular labs there, and I still didn't get one in person interview. So I doubt that the reputation of the school matters.

I'm sorry to hear that you have not yet gotten any interviews. However, yours is still only one case. It's also going to vary a bit by season, such as who has funding when and who you're competing against. I'm not trying to say that a good school and good connections guarantees acceptance, but it appears to certainly help. Hell, if it were down to two applicants with identical GPAs, equally-notable recommenders, and comparable SOPs, I myself would go with the Ivy-league grad. 

[TheMercySeat]

I'm not saying you're mistaken, but it just seem so hard to believe that standards have increased that much in the few years since I applied. I had two posters, no publications, and was accepted at three top 20 programs.

You're in Canada, right?

Things might be different in terms of saturation and funding.

[TXInstrument11]

You're in Canada, right?

Things might be different in terms of saturation and funding.

That's what I'm wondering too. I haven't cracked open that fat APA book of grad schools to check on Canada's situation before. 

[mb712]

Hang in there guys! Other than the GRE situation already mentioned, keep in mind that the decision is just as much about the school as it is about you. You very well could be doing absolutely nothing wrong but something on their end makes the relationship unlikely to be a match. You never know, next year the circumstances might be wildly different at the very same programs & you would be at the top of their lists.

Social programs are insanely competitive, so 90% of applicants feel totally deflated. We all have an empathetic support system here!

[TXInstrument11]

the decision is just as much about the school as it is about you. You very well could be doing absolutely nothing wrong but something on their end makes the relationship unlikely to be a match. 

"The dumb kid used Arial instead of Times New Roman. Obviously, this ain't gonna work. Reject!" 

 

No, but seriously - this is true. I've heard of some folks getting in everywhere they were rejected by in a previous year and others who were good enough for Harvard, but not Podunk U. 

[TheMercySeat]

That's what I'm wondering too. I haven't cracked open that fat APA book of grad schools to check on Canada's situation before.

I actually considered applying out of the country because I thought my GRE scores would screw me out of all US schools.

[lewin]

You're in Canada, right?

Things might be different in terms of saturation and funding.

 

Yes, I ended up at a Canadian program, but I applied in the U.S. too and by "top 20" I meant of all North American social psychology programs (according to a recent ranking of research influence in PSPB). So I didn't mean my statement to apply to Canada only. To be clear, I also had 3 years' lab experience, great stats background, kick ass letters, and GRE scores above 95th percentile in all categories.

 

To reply to some of the more recent comments... 

 

- your institution definitely matters because people will assume you had better training at a (perceived to be) better school.

- the reputation and network of your referees matters because people will give more weight to people whose opinion they trust

- none of these things are unique to academia. Getting a real job is all about prestige and networking too.

[lewin]

I actually considered applying out of the country because I thought my GRE scores would screw me out of all US schools.

 

"All US schools", really?

 

I don't mean to be harsh here, but that's really American-centric and shows that you're not familiar with the reputations of social psych programs more broadly. The Canadian social psychology programs at UBC, Toronto, and Waterloo are among the top social programs in North America.

 

Edit to add because you referenced the GRE: everyone in my year scored 99th percentile on the psych GRE and mostly above 90 or 95th on the parts of the general.

 

I'm realizing this post might come off as defensive, but, yes, I was slightly peeved at the implications from a few posters that Canadian schools are less selective and particularly this quote.

Edited January 28, 2015 by lewin

[VulpesZerda]

To add my anecdote to the mix...

I had a few things going against me.

For one, I can almost guarantee that no one here has heard of my undergrad institution. It's that bad. I'm convinced they'll accept anyone - obviously I was a very different type of student when I applied there.

Another thing is that my GRE scores are quite average/meh (158V 153Q and 5.0AWA).

Last week I was accepted to a program so my theory that an unheard of liberal arts school and GREs would hold me back was incorrect. I can only assume that I was helped by networking with a lot of professors outside of my institution and being in a constant state of doing relevant research. I still think it's a crap shoot, even after getting in. The professor who is interested in me easily could have had a full lab or started a new line of research. For reasons like this, I was mentally prepared for doing this twice. Just my own experience! Each applicant is so unique, it's impossible to pin down how decisions are made about us.

[TXInstrument11]

"All US schools", really?

 

I don't mean to be harsh here, but that's really American-centric and shows that you're not familiar with the reputations of social psych programs more broadly. The Canadian social psychology programs at UBC, Toronto, and Waterloo are among the top social programs in North America.

I'm not sure they're implying that US programs are better. It's common (though perhaps incorrect) wisdom that GRE scores matter more in the US. No one is trashing you for going to a Canadian school. 

Edited January 28, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[TheMercySeat]

I'm not sure they're implying that US programs are better. It's common (though perhaps incorrect) wisdom that GRE scores matter more in the US. No one is trashing you for going to a Canadian school.

THIS.

I work among people that earned PhDs in Germany, Australia, and other countries.

As stated by one of them, "the GRE is a silly American test made for silly American schools."

The reason why I didn't apply overseas were financial, to be honest..

[TheMercySeat]

I'm not sure they're implying that US programs are better. It's common (though perhaps incorrect) wisdom that GRE scores matter more in the US. No one is trashing you for going to a Canadian school.

THIS.

I work among people that earned PhDs in Germany, Australia, and other countries.

As stated by one of them, "the GRE is a silly American test made for silly American schools."

The reason why I didn't apply overseas were financial, to be honest. Australia is expensive to travel to

I have the upmost respect for international PhDs.

[tha1ne]

To add my anecdote to the mix...

I had a few things going against me.

For one, I can almost guarantee that no one here has heard of my undergrad institution. It's that bad. I'm convinced they'll accept anyone - obviously I was a very different type of student when I applied there.

Another thing is that my GRE scores are quite average/meh (158V 153Q and 5.0AWA).

Last week I was accepted to a program so my theory that an unheard of liberal arts school and GREs would hold me back was incorrect. I can only assume that I was helped by networking with a lot of professors outside of my institution and being in a constant state of doing relevant research. I still think it's a crap shoot, even after getting in. The professor who is interested in me easily could have had a full lab or started a new line of research. For reasons like this, I was mentally prepared for doing this twice. Just my own experience! Each applicant is so unique, it's impossible to pin down how decisions are made about us.

Congrats VulpesZerda! Where did you go for undergrad and what school accepted you?

[VulpesZerda]

Congrats VulpesZerda! Where did you go for undergrad and what school accepted you?

Thank you! I'd prefer to PM that info, but I will say here that it's a top 40 program.

[smbtuckma]

There have also been big cuts in funding from the U.S. government for social science in the last couple years (30% proposed reduction for NSF next year, the buggers) and a steady increase in application. Even the grad student I work with now says the undergrads my age are having a much harder time getting in than her cohort did, anywhere.

[TXInstrument11]

There have also been big cuts in funding from the U.S. government for social science in the last couple years (30% proposed reduction for NSF next year, the buggers) and a steady increase in application. Even the grad student I work with now says the undergrads my age are having a much harder time getting in than her cohort did, anywhere.

This is what I have heard as well, though I am not especially familiar with the exact numbers. 

[coffeeaddict29]

"All US schools", really?

 

I don't mean to be harsh here, but that's really American-centric and shows that you're not familiar with the reputations of social psych programs more broadly. The Canadian social psychology programs at UBC, Toronto, and Waterloo are among the top social programs in North America.

 

Edit to add because you referenced the GRE: everyone in my year scored 99th percentile on the psych GRE and mostly above 90 or 95th on the parts of the general.

 

I'm realizing this post might come off as defensive, but, yes, I was slightly peeved at the implications from a few posters that Canadian schools are less selective and particularly this quote.

Actually Canadian schools are more selective than US schools. Last year, I got an interview at Toronto. My POI really wanted me and she said that she did fight for me really hard but ultimately, I didn't get in because they had really, really limited funding for non-Canadians. She referenced some Ontario law that restricts the number of international students to a really ridiculously small number- like 4-- per year.

And also, 2 of the most badass researchers I know are at UBC and Toronto. Just to be clear.

Also, this year at the Skype interview, the UofT prof asked me why my math GRE score is lower than my verbal. So the GRE matters about just as much as in the US. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by coffeeaddict29

[TheMercySeat]

Actually Canadian schools are more selective than US schools. Last year, I got an interview at Toronto. My POI really wanted me and she said that she did fight for me really hard but ultimately, I didn't get in because they had really, really limited funding for non-Canadians. She referenced some Ontario law that restricts the number of international students to a really ridiculously small number- like 4-- per year.

And also, 2 of the most badass researchers I know are at UBC and Toronto. Just to be clear.

Also, this year at the Skype interview, the UofT prof asked me why my math GRE score is lower than my verbal. So the GRE matters about just as much as in the US.

Note I didn't say Canadian, either.

I noted while browsing universities in the UK that many of them made no mention of GREs on their website. At all.

If one wants to infer no GREs = 'subpar' institution, then I hope they take a long, hard look @Oxford's admission requirements.

[tha1ne]

Actually Canadian schools are more selective than US schools. Last year, I got an interview at Toronto. My POI really wanted me and she said that she did fight for me really hard but ultimately, I didn't get in because they had really, really limited funding for non-Canadians. She referenced some Ontario law that restricts the number of international students to a really ridiculously small number- like 4-- per year.

And also, 2 of the most badass researchers I know are at UBC and Toronto. Just to be clear.

Also, this year at the Skype interview, the UofT prof asked me why my math GRE score is lower than my verbal. So the GRE matters about just as much as in the US. 

Not saying that I don't agree with you, but as an aspiring psychologist you should know that your presented evidence is 'anecdotal'. If you really want to make your claim (about Canadian selectivity > US selectivity), you should use 'big' data or run a meta-analysis using average admission rates for US and Canadian schools.  

[TheMercySeat]

Not saying that I don't agree with you, but as an aspiring psychologist you should know that your presented evidence is 'anecdotal'. If you really want to make your claim (about Canadian selectivity > US selectivity), you should use 'big' data or run a meta-analysis using average admission rates for US and Canadian schools.

It's not even about 'selectivity,' as far as I'm concerned-- it's about whether an average score on one subscale negates an otherwise strong portfolio. The GRE is the 'gold standard' in the US, but in some countries it isn't even a consideration