2015 - Social Psych

[coffeeaddict29]

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.  

I know but the fact that there are laws restricting international students to ridiculously low numbers is saying something. Again, THERE ARE LAWS. In the US at least, I don't have to deal with the the whole international status because I'm not international in the US.

Also, by the way, I'm not saying that they are better. Admission rates aren't a good indicator of how good the program is.

Edited January 29, 2015 by coffeeaddict29

[FinallyAccepted]

"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.

Some of the people I would really have liked to apply with are at Toronto and Waterloo, but I was intimidated enough at moving across the country after being well-established where I am, that the thought of moving abroad was too much for me. When my husband found out I didn't apply (but COULD have) to Canadian programs, he wished that I had.

[avidman]

Okay, time out.

 

I after watching this forum for a while and after seeing two pages of messages added over the course of today, I need to interject.

 

Regarding everyone who is upset about not getting in / thinking that they are incapable / not good enough / etc., I have a story to tell. I graduated from a decent university, had a decent GPA (<3.6, though I had two majors), and a meh GRE score (at the time, 153V, 158Q, 3.0V; retook, 151V, 154Q, 4.5W). I had worked in a lab for about a year and a half while in school before I applied for the first time for graduate school. After meeting a professor at a conference, I made a good impression, applied to their program, got an interview, and was not admitted (I repeat not). Although I did get accepted into a master's program, I declined the offer because I didn't want to pay, and after months of despairing, I redirected my motivation and attention into getting a job during research.

 

After working for over a year at the lab, I applied to graduate school again in conjuction with taking the GREs again. I did much better (V155, 161Q, 4.5W) and managed to get an interview and an acceptance from two schools.

 

When it comes to applying to graduate school, this is what I think matters:

1 - Credentials (Decent GPA, Decent GRE - if not decent, a damn good explaination as to why)

2 - Research Experience (which really should be #1 in my book, because graduate schools like that kind of stuff)

3 - Networking (Trust me, I don't like the game, as I sometimes find it superficial, but at the end of the day, it is a skill that will only help you).

4 - Best of fit (making damn sure that you actually fit in the program).

5 - Luck. Plan and simple.

 

So the point of this by no means is to gloat or anything like that, but rather to illustrate that if you didn't get in the school that you wanted, then try again, only the next time, become better at any aspect that can be improved. In my case, I increased my research experience, gained many technical skills, and slightly improved my GRE score.

 

And if you think money is an issue, I'll be frank (Super Frank): I have been poor all of my life. After I got a job, I was able to pay off for things like grad apps, retaking the GRE, etc.

 

*exhale*

 

I hope this helps.

 

Oh, and regarding pubs, I don't have any. I did present a handful of poster presentations all over the country.

Edited January 29, 2015 by avidman

[smbtuckma]

Okay, time out.

 

I after watching this forum for a while and after seeing two pages of messages added over the course of today, I need to interject.

 

Regarding everyone who is upset about not getting in / thinking that they are incapable / not good enough / etc., I have a story to tell. I graduated from a decent university, had a decent GPA (<3.6, though I had two majors), and a meh GRE score (at the time, 153V, 158Q, 3.0V; retook, 151V, 154Q, 4.5W). I had worked in a lab for about a year and a half while in school before I applied for the first time for graduate school. After meeting a professor at a conference, I made a good impression, applied to their program, got an interview, and was not admitted (I repeat not). Although I did get accepted into a master's program, I declined the offer because I didn't want to pay, and after months of despairing, I redirected my motivation and attention into getting a job during research.

 

After working for over a year at the lab, I applied to graduate school again in conjuction with taking the GREs again. I did much better (V155, 161Q, 4.5W) and managed to get an interview and an acceptance from two schools.

 

When it comes to applying to graduate school, this is what I think matters:

1 - Credentials (Decent GPA, Decent GRE - if not decent, a damn good explaination as to why)

2 - Research Experience (which really should be #1 in my book, because graduate schools like that kind of stuff)

3 - Networking (Trust me, I don't like the game, as I sometimes find it superficial, but at the end of the day, it is a skill that will only help you).

4 - Best of fit (making damn sure that you actually fit in the program).

5 - Luck. Plan and simple.

 

So the point of this by no means is to gloat or anything like that, but rather to illustrate that if you didn't get in the school that you wanted, then try again, only the next time, become better at any aspect that can be improved. In my case, I increased my research experience, gained many technical skills, and slightly improved my GRE score.

 

And if you think money is an issue, I'll be frank (Super Frank): I have been poor all of my life. After I got a job, I was able to pay off for things like grad apps, retaking the GRE, etc.

 

*exhale*

 

I hope this helps.

 

Oh, and regarding pubs, I don't have any. I did present a handful of poster presentations all over the country.

 

Congrats on your improvement and acceptance!

[avidman]

Congrats on your improvement and acceptance!

 

Thanks!

[fd.711]

 

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

No, you don't.

 

Source: Am in grad school (PhD @ R1 university), did not have any publications at time of admission. Also know/know of students who were admitted before and after me w/o publications.

 

Remember, graduate school is still, well, school. You're not expected to come in with a record as strong as someone who has been in the program for awhile, just as you weren't expected to know everything about psychology (or whatever) when you picked it as your undergrad major. Publications are a product of your research training, and grad school is where you get the vast majority of that training in the first place.

 

Furthermore, graduate programs want students who will benefit from the program, and vice-versa, meaning they're not concerned with what you have done so much as with what you can do. So it's true that having publications will help your case, because it clearly demonstrates that you're capable of executing the research process from start to finish--but NOT having any pubs doesn't imply that you are incapable of executing the research process from start to finish, and there are other things that might also reflect your ability to succeed in grad school (e.g., your academic record, your letters of rec, the quality of your personal statement, and whatever research experience you DO have*).

 

If you have the chance to get a publication, or publications, before starting grad school, by all means go for it. But don't assume that getting published is a prerequisite for getting accepted. I speak from firsthand experience when I say that anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap.

 

(P.S.: if you still don't believe me, don't forget that getting published is f***ing hard. If grad schools only accepted applicants who had already been published, they'd quickly run out of grad students.

 

P.P.S.: For the record, I went to an obscure public liberal arts college--not an Ivy or some other "prestigious" school--and I still got in.)

 

*Listed in no particular order.

[avidman]

 

 

No, you don't.

 

Source: Am in grad school (PhD @ R1 university), did not have any publications at time of admission. Also know/know of students who were admitted before and after me w/o publications.

 

Remember, graduate school is still, well, school. You're not expected to come in with a record as strong as someone who has been in the program for awhile, just as you weren't expected to know everything about psychology (or whatever) when you picked it as your undergrad major. Publications are a product of your research training, and grad school is where you get the vast majority of that training in the first place.

 

Furthermore, graduate programs want students who will benefit from the program, and vice-versa, meaning they're not concerned with what you have done so much as with what you can do. So it's true that having publications will help your case, because it clearly demonstrates that you're capable of executing the research process from start to finish--but NOT having any pubs doesn't imply that you are incapable of executing the research process from start to finish, and there are other things that might also reflect your ability to succeed in grad school (e.g., your academic record, your letters of rec, the quality of your personal statement, and whatever research experience you DO have*).

 

If you have the chance to get a publication, or publications, before starting grad school, by all means go for it. But don't assume that getting published is a prerequisite for getting accepted. I speak from firsthand experience when I say that anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap.

 

(P.S.: if you still don't believe me, don't forget that getting published is f***ing hard. If grad schools only accepted applicants who had already been published, they'd quickly run out of grad students.

 

P.P.S.: For the record, I went to an obscure public liberal arts college--not an Ivy or some other "prestigious" school--and I still got in.)

 

*Listed in no particular order.

 

This^

[TXInstrument11]

We can all still be realistic about our chances - especially concerning factors that are not beyond our direct control at this point. While I'm understandably a bit anxious about this potentially not working out, I'm not having fits of despair over it either. I also think we do a disservice to people visiting these forums looking for guidance when we cling to positive thinking in spite of contrary evidence. Hashing out the relative (un)importance of all the factors that go into a grad app is what this forum is about, after all.  

 

I don't think less of myself  for going to a low-level uni or think I'm dumber and less capable than someone with better GRE scores, but I still recognizing that both factors (school prestige, GREs) can be influential in admissions decisions. 

 

Also, anecdotes do not break general rules. They show that good outcomes given X,Y,Z factors can happen, but tell very little about what the average applicant can reasonably expect when the particulars of those XYZ factors are unknown. 

[Gepetto13]

 

 

No, you don't.

 

Source: Am in grad school (PhD @ R1 university), did not have any publications at time of admission. Also know/know of students who were admitted before and after me w/o publications.

 

Remember, graduate school is still, well, school. You're not expected to come in with a record as strong as someone who has been in the program for awhile, just as you weren't expected to know everything about psychology (or whatever) when you picked it as your undergrad major. Publications are a product of your research training, and grad school is where you get the vast majority of that training in the first place.

 

Furthermore, graduate programs want students who will benefit from the program, and vice-versa, meaning they're not concerned with what you have done so much as with what you can do. So it's true that having publications will help your case, because it clearly demonstrates that you're capable of executing the research process from start to finish--but NOT having any pubs doesn't imply that you are incapable of executing the research process from start to finish, and there are other things that might also reflect your ability to succeed in grad school (e.g., your academic record, your letters of rec, the quality of your personal statement, and whatever research experience you DO have*).

 

If you have the chance to get a publication, or publications, before starting grad school, by all means go for it. But don't assume that getting published is a prerequisite for getting accepted. I speak from firsthand experience when I say that anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap.

 

(P.S.: if you still don't believe me, don't forget that getting published is f***ing hard. If grad schools only accepted applicants who had already been published, they'd quickly run out of grad students.

 

P.P.S.: For the record, I went to an obscure public liberal arts college--not an Ivy or some other "prestigious" school--and I still got in.)

 

*Listed in no particular order.

 

You are absolutely correct.  It is possible to get into grad school without any publications and what matters is your potential.  I can't argue with you on that since you've done it, and I know people who've also done it (albeit several years ago).

 

What I was really trying to say was that having publications will vastly increase your chances.  Having even 1 pub - even if it's an undergrad journal - is very, very helpful.  You don't need to have 5 or 6 - that's the amount you'd have as you graduate with the PhD (if you're lucky!).  But something is always better than nothing, especially when competition is fierce.  That being said, if you have exhausted your good research ideas (or are intransigent and want to keep doing what you're currently doing), that can work against you.  

 

To echo previous comments, it's a combination of different factors that come together to make an application strong + luck.  Just like getting a regular job.

 

Actually, we can be scientific and call it "Gepetto's Formula," with weights:

 

Admission = 3*(Good ideas and statement + great reference letters) + 2/3*(some research experience * # of degrees) + 6/5*( decent grades and decent test scores) + 2(luck) + e

Edited January 29, 2015 by Gepetto13

[fd.711]

You are absolutely correct.  It is possible to get into grad school without any publications and what matters is your potential.  I can't argue with you on that since you've done it, and I know people who've also done it (albeit several years ago).

 

What I was really trying to say was that having publications will vastly increase your chances.  Having even 1 pub - even if it's an undergrad journal - is very, very helpful.  You don't need to have 5 or 6 - that's the amount you'd have as you graduate with the PhD (if you're lucky!).  But something is always better than nothing, especially when competition is fierce.  That being said, if you have exhausted your good research ideas (or are intransigent and want to keep doing what you're currently doing), that can work against you.  

 

To echo previous comments, it's a combination of different factors that come together to make an application strong + luck.  Just like getting a regular job.

 

Actually, we can be scientific and call it "Gepetto's Formula," with weights:

 

Admission = 3*(Good ideas and statement + great reference letters) + 2/3*(some research experience * # of degrees) + 6/5*( decent grades and decent test scores) + 2(luck) + e

Heh. That formula--which is entirely empirical, I'm sure --seems reasonable, although I might tweak some of the weights (and I prefer the term "serendipity" to "luck" in the context of GS admissions.)

 

Anyway, you are also absolutely correct that having publications will increase your chances. That said, I think you may be overstating how much pubs help. To be sure, research experience, preferably including studies of your own design, is critical, but publications are...well, I like to think of them as extra credit--they definitely help, but you can do okay without them.

 

Also, it's worth noting that different programs--and professors--may have different standards for what constitutes a strong application. As such, it is possible that there are programs (or professors) that won't seriously consider an applicant who doesn't have any publications, but if I had to guess, I'd say they're in the minority (at least in social psych). The chances of consistently--once every few years--finding sufficient applicants who have solid credentials, are a good fit, AND have a non-zero publication record are just too low to set the bar so high.

 

Finally, I don't want anyone reading this thread to think that having lots of publications is a Golden Ticket to grad school. (Not that I think anyone here would, but it bears mentioning anyway.) You could have all the pubs in the world and you'll still get rejected if you can't coherently describe your research interests, for example. Conversely, you could be the only applicant out of dozens to a particular lab who doesn't have any publications--and still get in, because your numbers are amazing, your letters are glowing, and your personal statement perfectly describes why you're the best fit for that lab out of all of the applicants.

 

Point is, don't get discouraged just because you don't have any publications. If your application is otherwise strong and you're a good fit for all of the programs to which you've applied, you still have a fighting chance.

 

(And if your application isn't otherwise strong and/or you aren't a good fit to your chosen programs, then the lack of publications ain't gonna be what keeps you out.)

[Gepetto13]

Heh. That formula--which is entirely empirical, I'm sure --seems reasonable, although I might tweak some of the weights (and I prefer the term "serendipity" to "luck" in the context of GS admissions.)

 

Anyway, you are also absolutely correct that having publications will increase your chances. That said, I think you may be overstating how much pubs help. To be sure, research experience, preferably including studies of your own design, is critical, but publications are...well, I like to think of them as extra credit--they definitely help, but you can do okay without them.

 

Also, it's worth noting that different programs--and professors--may have different standards for what constitutes a strong application. As such, it is possible that there are programs (or professors) that won't seriously consider an applicant who doesn't have any publications, but if I had to guess, I'd say they're in the minority (at least in social psych). The chances of consistently--once every few years--finding sufficient applicants who have solid credentials, are a good fit, AND have a non-zero publication record are just too low to set the bar so high.

 

Finally, I don't want anyone reading this thread to think that having lots of publications is a Golden Ticket to grad school. (Not that I think anyone here would, but it bears mentioning anyway.) You could have all the pubs in the world and you'll still get rejected if you can't coherently describe your research interests, for example. Conversely, you could be the only applicant out of dozens to a particular lab who doesn't have any publications--and still get in, because your numbers are amazing, your letters are glowing, and your personal statement perfectly describes why you're the best fit for that lab out of all of the applicants.

 

Point is, don't get discouraged just because you don't have any publications. If your application is otherwise strong and you're a good fit for all of the programs to which you've applied, you still have a fighting chance.

 

(And if your application isn't otherwise strong and/or you aren't a good fit to your chosen programs, then the lack of publications ain't gonna be what keeps you out.)

 

Well said. Very well said.

[tha1ne]

Well said. Very well said.

To the person who got into UMN social psych, congratulations! Would you mind PMing me your POI? Thank you!

[SallyHam]

I wasn't sure where to put this advice, b/c it really applies to all psych people. But I happen to be applying to social programs, so I figured I'd put it here. 

I applied two years ago and I got a couple of interviews but didn't get in anywhere.

 

My suggestion for those who might have to apply again, is to look at the SPSP employment forum and get a job at a leading institution. Or, just straight up email professors at leading institutions and ask them if they are looking and/or would be willing to have a volunteer (only if you think you could volunteer). Another place is the COGDEVSOC list serve--they post jobs too.

 

Also, I think a lot of people don't realize that social psychologists also have appointments at business schools, and business schools have a lot more funding. I got my current lab manager position by straight up cold emailing a faculty here in the Marketing department. I work with 2 researchers, one with a PhD in social psych and the other with a PhD in cognitive psych; my faculty adviser does have a marketing PhD, but still is extremely open to social psychology and knows all the big names and theories.

 

But really, there are social psychologists in the Negotiations/Organizational Behavior and/or Management and Marketing departments at all of the big schools--Adam Galinsky at Columbia School of Business is a really big name in intergroup relations (he has a phd in social psych). My interest, which is in evolutionary psych, is still being met at Minnesota Carlson School of Business with Vladas Griskevicius (also a social psych person). Many business schools like Chicago and UPenn offer a joint PhD in Business and Psychology, so that is also cool.

 

I'd recommend checking out these places when looking for gap year jobs and for applications. For jobs: They're likely to have more leadership-y Research Associate/Lab Manager jobs that are highly productive, professional, and that pay well. For applications: oftentimes Business PhD programs don't require you to go on-site for interviews (which make me really nervous), and there are much less people applying and the funding is insane ($48,000 a year for 5 years at Minnesota Carlson). The research is definitely more applied, but it's still theoretical. Much more likely to land a teaching position too after graduation. 

 

If you still like social psych and are hesitant about working in this environment and still applying to psych, don't worry, I have worked in business schools for the past 2 years, and still managed to get into one of the best social programs in the country. So they oftentimes don't care. They just care that you are learning skills and that you are doing research. More and more social psych is moving towards quantitative skills and practical knowledge (Javascript, HTML, Qualtrics, R, Inquisit, etc.), so anything you can do to learn these things (including self-study) only looks good to them.

 

Also, it's possible that psych programs don't admit older people, like 26+ (not b/c they are mean, but b/c getting a social psych phd takes time and will likely lead to a post-doc which also takes time, and they don't want to take up your time), but business schools don't care about age as much, because you can often get placed as soon as you graduate. I know someone who applied to social psych and management phds and she was 28 or 29, and the psych programs rejected her b/c they didn't understand why a person at her age would want a psych PhD, but she got into the best management program in the country at Harvard Business School. And now she basically does the same research, just with a slight applied twist.

 

Also, I think someone in this thread was interested in studying health decisions--there are tons of marketing people interested in this topic. 

 

I'm not trying to offend anyone (this is my first post ever on this site), so I hope I helped out!  Also happy to chat! 

 

 

[Much Anxious Very Waiting]

I wasn't sure where to put this advice, b/c it really applies to all psych people. But I happen to be applying to social programs, so I figured I'd put it here. 

I applied two years ago and I got a couple of interviews but didn't get in anywhere.

 

My suggestion for those who might have to apply again, is to look at the SPSP employment forum and get a job at a leading institution. Or, just straight up email professors at leading institutions and ask them if they are looking and/or would be willing to have a volunteer (only if you think you could volunteer). Another place is the COGDEVSOC list serve--they post jobs too.

 

Also, I think a lot of people don't realize that social psychologists also have appointments at business schools, and business schools have a lot more funding. I got my current lab manager position by straight up cold emailing a faculty here in the Marketing department. I work with 2 researchers, one with a PhD in social psych and the other with a PhD in cognitive psych; my faculty adviser does have a marketing PhD, but still is extremely open to social psychology and knows all the big names and theories.

 

But really, there are social psychologists in the Negotiations/Organizational Behavior and/or Management and Marketing departments at all of the big schools--Adam Galinsky at Columbia School of Business is a really big name in intergroup relations (he has a phd in social psych). My interest, which is in evolutionary psych, is still being met at Minnesota Carlson School of Business with Vladas Griskevicius (also a social psych person). Many business schools like Chicago and UPenn offer a joint PhD in Business and Psychology, so that is also cool.

 

I'd recommend checking out these places when looking for gap year jobs and for applications. For jobs: They're likely to have more leadership-y Research Associate/Lab Manager jobs that are highly productive, professional, and that pay well. For applications: oftentimes Business PhD programs don't require you to go on-site for interviews (which make me really nervous), and there are much less people applying and the funding is insane ($48,000 a year for 5 years at Minnesota Carlson). The research is definitely more applied, but it's still theoretical. Much more likely to land a teaching position too after graduation. 

 

If you still like social psych and are hesitant about working in this environment and still applying to psych, don't worry, I have worked in business schools for the past 2 years, and still managed to get into one of the best social programs in the country. So they oftentimes don't care. They just care that you are learning skills and that you are doing research. More and more social psych is moving towards quantitative skills and practical knowledge (Javascript, HTML, Qualtrics, R, Inquisit, etc.), so anything you can do to learn these things (including self-study) only looks good to them.

 

Also, it's possible that psych programs don't admit older people, like 26+ (not b/c they are mean, but b/c getting a social psych phd takes time and will likely lead to a post-doc which also takes time, and they don't want to take up your time), but business schools don't care about age as much, because you can often get placed as soon as you graduate. I know someone who applied to social psych and management phds and she was 28 or 29, and the psych programs rejected her b/c they didn't understand why a person at her age would want a psych PhD, but she got into the best management program in the country at Harvard Business School. And now she basically does the same research, just with a slight applied twist.

 

Also, I think someone in this thread was interested in studying health decisions--there are tons of marketing people interested in this topic. 

 

I'm not trying to offend anyone (this is my first post ever on this site), so I hope I helped out!  Also happy to chat! 

 

 

This is good advice, esp when it comes to where you're applying to PhD programs. We have lots of social folks at our management school. Their students do almost purely social psych research. However, if you hope to, for example, teach at a non-research focused school one day (say a small liberal arts school,) a degree in management may not set you up to teach in a psych department.

 

But one thing to keep in mind is that many of these lab manager / paid RA positions are statistically more difficult to get than it is to get into grad school. I am currently a lab manager at a business school as well. Well over 100 people applied for this job - and there was only 1 spot available, of course.

[SallyHam]

Yeah there are pros and cons!

 

Definitely would not be easy to teach psych if you got a management or marketing phd.  It's possible if you get a joint PhD in business and psych though.

 

At UVA, which is my undergrad institution, Ben Converse has his PhD in Behavioral Science from the business school at U of Chicago. He is housed in our Psych department. So it is possible, but probably not easy. It's also obviously possible to become a faculty at a business school w/ a psych phd (obviously I gave you some examples of this).

 

For jobs, I also suggest just cold emailing professors asking them if they are looking for a paid RA, because you never know! And you have nothing to lose sometimes. It's definitely easier if you are flexible to moving for this.

Edited January 29, 2015 by SallyHam

[Much Anxious Very Waiting]

Yeah there are pros and cons!

 

Definitely would not be easy to teach psych if you got a management or marketing phd.  It's possible if you get a joint PhD in business and psych though.

 

At UVA, which is my undergrad institution, Ben Converse has his PhD in Behavioral Science from the business school at U of Chicago. He is housed in our Psych department. So it is possible, but probably not easy. It's also obviously possible to become a faculty at a business school w/ a psych phd (obviously I gave you some examples of this).

 

For jobs, I also suggest just cold emailing professors asking them if they are looking for a paid RA, because you never know! And you have nothing to lose sometimes. It's definitely easier if you are flexible to moving for this.

 

Yes, moving helps! I think it shows dedication. But also, most people will likely have to move for grad school, so it's nice... practice?

[Gepetto13]

I wasn't sure where to put this advice, b/c it really applies to all psych people. But I happen to be applying to social programs, so I figured I'd put it here. 

I applied two years ago and I got a couple of interviews but didn't get in anywhere.

 

My suggestion for those who might have to apply again, is to look at the SPSP employment forum and get a job at a leading institution. Or, just straight up email professors at leading institutions and ask them if they are looking and/or would be willing to have a volunteer (only if you think you could volunteer). Another place is the COGDEVSOC list serve--they post jobs too.

 

Also, I think a lot of people don't realize that social psychologists also have appointments at business schools, and business schools have a lot more funding. I got my current lab manager position by straight up cold emailing a faculty here in the Marketing department. I work with 2 researchers, one with a PhD in social psych and the other with a PhD in cognitive psych; my faculty adviser does have a marketing PhD, but still is extremely open to social psychology and knows all the big names and theories.

 

But really, there are social psychologists in the Negotiations/Organizational Behavior and/or Management and Marketing departments at all of the big schools--Adam Galinsky at Columbia School of Business is a really big name in intergroup relations (he has a phd in social psych). My interest, which is in evolutionary psych, is still being met at Minnesota Carlson School of Business with Vladas Griskevicius (also a social psych person). Many business schools like Chicago and UPenn offer a joint PhD in Business and Psychology, so that is also cool.

 

I'd recommend checking out these places when looking for gap year jobs and for applications. For jobs: They're likely to have more leadership-y Research Associate/Lab Manager jobs that are highly productive, professional, and that pay well. For applications: oftentimes Business PhD programs don't require you to go on-site for interviews (which make me really nervous), and there are much less people applying and the funding is insane ($48,000 a year for 5 years at Minnesota Carlson). The research is definitely more applied, but it's still theoretical. Much more likely to land a teaching position too after graduation. 

 

If you still like social psych and are hesitant about working in this environment and still applying to psych, don't worry, I have worked in business schools for the past 2 years, and still managed to get into one of the best social programs in the country. So they oftentimes don't care. They just care that you are learning skills and that you are doing research. More and more social psych is moving towards quantitative skills and practical knowledge (Javascript, HTML, Qualtrics, R, Inquisit, etc.), so anything you can do to learn these things (including self-study) only looks good to them.

 

Also, it's possible that psych programs don't admit older people, like 26+ (not b/c they are mean, but b/c getting a social psych phd takes time and will likely lead to a post-doc which also takes time, and they don't want to take up your time), but business schools don't care about age as much, because you can often get placed as soon as you graduate. I know someone who applied to social psych and management phds and she was 28 or 29, and the psych programs rejected her b/c they didn't understand why a person at her age would want a psych PhD, but she got into the best management program in the country at Harvard Business School. And now she basically does the same research, just with a slight applied twist.

 

Also, I think someone in this thread was interested in studying health decisions--there are tons of marketing people interested in this topic. 

 

I'm not trying to offend anyone (this is my first post ever on this site), so I hope I helped out!  Also happy to chat! 

That does worry me - the age issue.  I'm in my early 30's and, frankly, it's none of their business why I'd want to get a psych phd at that age.  All they should care about is whether or not I can complete the program successfully and if my interests/skills match what they are looking for.  And being older, you'd think they'd see me as someone who is serious, mature, and has experience being disciplined with working regular hours, deadlines, etc.

Aside from the fact that it's completely illegal (on a federal level) to discriminate based on age.  But go and prove that they do.

[FinallyAccepted]

That does worry me - the age issue.  I'm in my early 30's and, frankly, it's none of their business why I'd want to get a psych phd at that age.  All they should care about is whether or not I can complete the program successfully and if my interests/skills match what they are looking for.  And being older, you'd think they'd see me as someone who is serious, mature, and has experience being disciplined with working regular hours, deadlines, etc.

Aside from the fact that it's completely illegal (on a federal level) to discriminate based on age.  But go and prove that they do.

 

This is my issue as well. I'm currently 31. I figured I would be disadvantaged, but my colleagues just laughed: "31 isn't old." Well, it is here.

[Gepetto13]

I do know two people who made it into a top program (clinical and social) who were in their late 30's, and some others who were late 20s.  Though most people I know who get in are between 22 and 27, really.  I'm basing this on an N of about 30.

[MyDogHasAPhD]

This is my issue as well. I'm currently 31. I figured I would be disadvantaged, but my colleagues just laughed: "31 isn't old." Well, it is here.

 

I asked Dr. Norcross this question at the EPA conference last year (Dude who wrote all the "getting into x psychology program handbooks") and he said your older age is actually viewed as GOOD thing. More maturity, history of demonstrated professional work ethic, more serious about your career goals, etc. etc. I also worry about this. I am 28, seems pretty hopeless I'll be getting into a program this time around. For me, it's more of a personal thing for not wanting to get my PhD started after 30. I'd like to have kids and think it will be quite difficult to do so if I am in a program, although I know many have done it. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by MyDogHasAPhD

[mb712]

I asked Dr. Norcross this question at the EPA conference last year (Dude who wrote all the "getting into x psychology program handbooks") and he said your older age is actually viewed as GOOD thing. More maturity, history of demonstrated professional work ethic, more serious about your career goals, etc. etc. I also worry about this. I am 28, seems pretty hopeless I'll be getting into a program this time around. For me, it's more of a personal thing for not wanting to get my PhD started after 30. I'd like to have kids and think it will be quite difficult to do so if I am in a program, although I know many have done it.

This this this. I turn 27 this year and if I hadn't been admitted somewhere this year I'm not sure I would try in years to come mostly because I want to have kids and the advice I've heard echoed the most is to have your first during your last year of graduate school (especially if you're planning on entering academia). My own personal preference is to have one by the time I'm in my mid-30s.

Purely anecdotal but an advisor of mine said late-20s is a preference because of the maturity factor + that age groups tends to be there because they really want to, not because they've been told they need to at 22 straight out of undergrad because psych bachelor's degrees don't get you anywhere.

[FinallyAccepted]

I saw someone posted for Miami (Ohio) today. Anyone want to claim that by PMing me your POI? Appreciate it.

[Piagetsky]

Might be a stupid question, but is DOB on a grad school app?  I know it's not allowed on job applications.

[FinallyAccepted]

Might be a stupid question, but is DOB on a grad school app?  I know it's not allowed on job applications.

 

Yes, it is

[FinallyAccepted]

Yes, it is

 

"Yes" to DOB, not "yes" to stupid question. My bad for being unclear.