Rejection Thread!

[SocialHealth]

From the other side of the situation as a first year graduate student who had to interview prospective students this past month, the interview process is very important. Be very aware that interview day is the day you are on your best behavior. That means no talking bad about anyone, no acting like you're the best, no smoking, etc. It is not the day to let your quirks or controllable idiosyncrasies come out. It shows and sometimes it comes out during the interview and might put you in a different category than the person who didn't have those weird quirks or do the weird thing around the grad students. It's one day! 

 Also know your research interests and have some knowledge of what you are talking about. It's not only important that your research interests match your mentor but it also has to make sense and not sound like you made it up on the spot. Please practice practice practice!!! Because when you make things up on the spot it sounds weird. I never understood until I had to do the interviewing how weird it sounds. 

I think that would be my advice for anyone who may have gotten rejected this cycle and these two things may be your issue. It's not anything you can't fix. 

[overdetermination]

9 hours ago, SocialHealth said:

Be very aware that interview day is the day you are on your best behavior. That means no talking bad about anyone, no acting like you're the best, no smoking, etc. It is not the day to let your quirks or controllable idiosyncrasies come out. It shows and sometimes it comes out during the interview and might put you in a different category than the person who didn't have those weird quirks or do the weird thing around the grad students.

Can you provide an example of a "controllable idiosyncrasy" or "weird quirk" that reflects poorly on someone's capacity to perform in graduate school and would therefore be a reasonable ground on which to judge a prospective applicant? 

Edited March 2, 2016 by overdetermination

[SocialHealth]

 

t

Edited March 2, 2016 by SocialHealth
forgot to quote

[SocialHealth]

52 minutes ago, overdetermination said:

Can you provide an example of a "controllable idiosyncrasy" or "weird quirk" that reflects poorly on someone's capacity to perform in graduate school and would therefore be a reasonable ground on which to judge a prospective applicant? 

Not without outing people who may be on this forum. But let's just say yes how you act or your idiosyncrasies does not reflect on your capacity to perform but it will reflect on how you and your potential mentor, cohort, and other faculty may get along. It's like a 5 year marriage with a person. So personality traits and things of that sort matter although it does not say oh this person isn't qualified for the program. It says oh well I'm not sure I can be around this person for the next 5 years on such an intimate basis. You work with this one person very closely and first impressions have a great impact. 

And things will get back to your potential mentor which may sway his or her decision. 

[dancedementia]

4 hours ago, overdetermination said:

Can you provide an example of a "controllable idiosyncrasy" or "weird quirk" that reflects poorly on someone's capacity to perform in graduate school and would therefore be a reasonable ground on which to judge a prospective applicant? 

Honestly, just the little things that make you think, "Wow, this guy's a jerk." Some examples I saw the past few interview days where I was helping to interview prospectives...

1. Continually apologizing for attending a poorly ranked undergrad ("I could have gone to Yale but my parents wanted me to stay closer to home, I really regret that, my state school was pretty terrible, etc.") Makes you sound like you only care about the prestige of the school...
2. Being a suck-up. No one likes a blatant suck-up. Do it tastefully. But shoving your way past three other people just to ask me a totally obvious question, (e.g. "I've been wanting to talk to you all morning since you come from my same home state! So, do you like it here?" Uh, duh I like it here or else I would have left? And being from Texas in no way implies we are anything alike.) This also extends to blatant show-offs. 
3. Treating other candidates disrespectfully when you think the interviewers/profs aren't watching. That's why we have student volunteers and admin assistants hovering around to help out.... they report back to us....
4. Any sort of bizarre hobby, like.... attending anime conventions every weekend or being part of a burlesque troupe or cold-calling for Bernie Sanders. Not saying any of these things are inherent bad, but you don't want to be singled out as "weird" or uncommitted (unless, of course, you're doing Culture Studies, Dance Studies, or Political Science, respectfully, in which case maybe a brief mention would be fine). You can let that crazy out once you've been in the program for a while, but not on interview day.

[overdetermination]

4 hours ago, SocialHealth said:

Not without outing people who may be on this forum. But let's just say yes how you act or your idiosyncrasies does not reflect on your capacity to perform but it will reflect on how you and your potential mentor, cohort, and other faculty may get along. It's like a 5 year marriage with a person. So personality traits and things of that sort matter although it does not say oh this person isn't qualified for the program. It says oh well I'm not sure I can be around this person for the next 5 years on such an intimate basis.

If you were just talking about personality compatibility, shouldn't you encourage people to be themselves so everyone can suss this kind of thing out honestly, rather than trying to conceal some kind of mysterious "weird quirks"? Which @dancedementia suggests could be as trivial as liking anime? (The other points on your list are not "weird quirks" you could conceal for a day, they are behaviors that manifest precisely because people are trying to impress and are self-conscious.) I am honestly trying to figure out what you might have been talking about for this reason: 

You have populations of people on the autism spectrum, people who have social or performance anxiety, people from other cultures or subcultures, who might behave in a way that is different without at all being wrong or bad, unless you find deviations from social norms internally intolerable somehow. You're telling people like that that they can't be themselves, the their nature is a liability, and then putting the onus on them to fake it through rather than calling out the circumstances that apparently give people license to judge others academic worthiness on their hobbies or harmless personality traits. It's more than a little messed up, which I grant that this whole process is, but we don't have to actively contribute to it by adding in extra layers of judgment, fakeness and jerkery. 

 

[FeelTheBern]

Just gonna leave this here...

[communityhopeful]

3 hours ago, overdetermination said:

If you were just talking about personality compatibility, shouldn't you encourage people to be themselves so everyone can suss this kind of thing out honestly, rather than trying to conceal some kind of mysterious "weird quirks"? Which @dancedementia suggests could be as trivial as liking anime? (The other points on your list are not "weird quirks" you could conceal for a day, they are behaviors that manifest precisely because people are trying to impress and are self-conscious.) I am honestly trying to figure out what you might have been talking about for this reason: 

You have populations of people on the autism spectrum, people who have social or performance anxiety, people from other cultures or subcultures, who might behave in a way that is different without at all being wrong or bad, unless you find deviations from social norms internally intolerable somehow. You're telling people like that that they can't be themselves, the their nature is a liability, and then putting the onus on them to fake it through rather than calling out the circumstances that apparently give people license to judge others academic worthiness on their hobbies or harmless personality traits. It's more than a little messed up, which I grant that this whole process is, but we don't have to actively contribute to it by adding in extra layers of judgment, fakeness and jerkery. 

 

I love this comment so much! I really worried about trying not to be fake in my interviews. Now I'm in the waiting game, and I don't know if I'll be accepted anywhere, but if I were, I would feel like I was accepted as the person I am, and I would have some idea what it might be like to work with the people I spoke with exactly because I was myself during my visits. And I agree, being a jerk to other people isn't a quirk. you shouldn't do that at an interview, but you shouldn't do it anyway. On the other hand, if someone would hold it against me that I tried to make conversation about where someone was from or that I have interests outside of psychology, that's not someone I want to study with for 5 years. Psychologists can be a conservative group and our study of norms can sometimes seem to pointlessly restrict the lovely wide range of human behaviour. Lucky for me, I only interviewed in places where people seemed to value diversity of life experience. But I agree that we shouldn't be contributing to making each other super paranoid about being nervous during visits or about liking anime or burlesque or whatever it is people do when they are not studying. This is stressful enough without us all trying to kill off our interests and eradicate our personalities! OK, rant over, back to working and waiting here!

[FeelTheBern]

2 hours ago, communityhopeful said:

I would feel like I was accepted as the person I am, and I would have some idea what it might be like to work with the people I spoke with exactly because I was myself during my visits.

That's a really awesome thing to say @communityhopeful, I didn't think about it like that, but you are completely right!

6 hours ago, dancedementia said:

(e.g. "I've been wanting to talk to you all morning since you come from my same home state! So, do you like it here?" Uh, duh I like it here or else I would have left? And being from Texas in no way implies we are anything alike.)

I found this part of your comment really offensive due the fact that I get super excited when I meet someone from my state on the east coast, (let's just say there aren't very many New Mexicans living in New Jersey) and I am in no way trying to suck up to someone or just make "small talk" with them. So I would imagine that someone living in Texas may be excited to meet someone from Texas living in Boston as well. Also, just because you left Texas and moved to Boston does not mean that you like it there. Many people move to new states/cities due to jobs, school, etc. every single day, but that doesn't mean that they like it there. Lastly, just because someone said they were from the same state as you doesn't mean they are implying that they are like you.

I sincerely hope that this candidate was not spoken poorly of or labeled a "suck up" for mentioning that he/she was from the same state as you. If they really shoved past three other applicants, I could understand how that may be too forthcoming and seem desperate, but during interview days, applicants are extremely nervous and under so much pressure that it is really unfair to judge them on something like this, especially since they are most likely looking up to you and trying to impress you because you are a current student.

Edited March 3, 2016 by FeelTheBern

[ihatechoosingusernames]

6 hours ago, dancedementia said:

Honestly, just the little things that make you think, "Wow, this guy's a jerk."

Any sort of bizarre hobby, like.... attending anime conventions every weekend or being part of a burlesque troupe or cold-calling for Bernie Sanders. Not saying any of these things are inherent bad, but you don't want to be singled out as "weird" or uncommitted (unless, of course, you're doing Culture Studies, Dance Studies, or Political Science, respectfully, in which case maybe a brief mention would be fine). You can let that crazy out once you've been in the program for a while, but not on interview day.

Ew! OMG! Someone getting involved in the political process?!? How bizarre! Could you you imagine someone trying to piece together politics AND psychology?! Not in my Ivory Tower! I mean, what are we? A group of people who might want to use relevant research to eventually craft sound public policy for the betterment of society? As IF! 

And seriously? Having diverse interests outside of academia?!? They're doomed. Not only are they doomed, but they're crazy! Totally uncommitted jerks! I don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't even THINK about letting people know my personal preferences on anything until my masters thesis is defended and I've passed my comps. 

Remind me what school you're at again? I'd like to know where not to go. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by ihatechoosingusernames

[MarineBluePsy]

2 hours ago, FeelTheBern said:

I found this part of your comment really offensive due the fact that I get super excited when I meet someone from my state on the east coast, (let's just say there aren't very many New Mexicans living in New Jersey) and I am in no way trying to suck up to someone or just make "small talk" with them. So I would imagine that someone living in Texas may be excited to meet someone from Texas living in Boston as well. Also, just because you left Texas and moved to Boston does not mean that you like it there. Many people move to new states/cities due to jobs, school, etc. every single day, but that doesn't mean that they like it there. Lastly, just because someone said they were from the same state as you doesn't mean they are implying that they are like you.

While I don't think its a bad thing that you or anyone else is excited to meet someone from your home state while on interviews (or elsewhere) I think what gets lost is not everyone shares your enthusiasm.  I've met my share of people that were thrilled to leave their home states because things weren't peachy there, so they may prefer to not get very detailed.  Although I love my home state when I'm elsewhere in the world I'm not overly excited to meet others from there either.  In my experience the overly excited types tend to go straight to the "of course we totally get each other so I can ask you super personal questions and be really nosy because we're alike" or they overshare about themselves and I'm looking for an exit.  I'm more the "we're from the same state?  that's cool" type and am more interested in what's going on here and now.  

Asking if I like where I am currently doesn't bother me and I can't say I've met anyone who is bothered by that question.  Its usually not necessary to ask because when someone mentions being from somewhere else I find they often either say they like where they are now or that they miss home and can't wait to go back.

All the chatter about this reminds me of a really weird situation I had in a meetup group.  I have a very unusual first name and a gal with the exact same first name joined a group I was in.  She then emailed me pointing out we had the same name and how cool she thought it was.  Had she stopped there it would have been fine.  Instead she wrote an entire manuscript on the origins of her (I guess our?) name, its significance in her family, and how finding me was so amazing.  Then when she attended events she told others in the group how excited she was to share a name with me, couldn't wait for us to meet, and had told all her family and friends about our shared name.  Way too much for me and I have never met her lol. 

[FeelTheBern]

@MarineBluePsy thank you for mentioning this, you make an excellent (and really funny) point! (Now I want to know your name!)

I do agree that for those who do not share in the excitement of being from the same state (or having the same name, same birthday, whatever it may be), this type of behavior could be overwhelming and unwarranted. I am just unsure whether it's appropriate to label someone who acts this way a "suck up", a "show off", and a "jerk" and then going on to say, "Uh, duh I like it here or else I would have left?"

When you are in a new atmosphere and nerves are at an all-time high, sometimes silly things come out of your mouth to fill the void or to try to start a conversation. Was the applicant nervous? Most likely...Was he/she trying to be noticed and remembered during the interview? Probably...Does this make them a jerk? No, I don't believe it does.

Edited March 3, 2016 by FeelTheBern

[dancedementia]

Sorry I can't respond to everyone directly - there's a lot of good discussion going on here. To clarify some of my points:

1. I don't think it's terrible to have interests outside of academia. But when we're in the middle of our group interview and you're blatantly tossing out unrelated hobbies (in an attempt to do what?) in front of a panel of conservative academics.... it's not exactly the "best foot forward" approach. I'm personally not offended by any of the items I offered as examples (and actually partake in some form of all of them), but there is a proper time to mention "out there" items, and the group interview - where you're being asked about your career goals and your research interests - is not the time or the place. A person who feels the need to "stand out" as a sparkly unique snowflake comes off as trying too hard.

2. I personally get irritated at try-hards and most professors do as well. There is a line between trying hard and being excited about being there. One of the candidates ambushed one of the professors on her way out the door - when she had just announced that she had a meeting to go to - and tried to engage her in a long conversation about a fairly trivial point that could have been asked to anyone else in the room who DIDN"T need to leave (something along the lines of, "Can I substitute X class for Y class" - girl, calm down, you haven't even been accepted!)  Yes, I get you're trying to make a connection and show interest, but disrespecting someone else's time is not the way to go. In my other example (sorry I was typing on my phone and not being clear), there was a LINE of people to talk to us, and this individual straight up cut three people in line to gush in my face. Sorry, no. Expressing glee over being from the same state does not trump common human politeness.

I guess tl;dr - don't be an ass and respect the people you're interviewing with. I've been on both sides of the table and it's *always* the candidates who are respectful that get the most points.

Another thing to think about is that yes, we're choosing candidates based on their personality, but we're also choosing candidates that we think can represent the program well, not make fools of themselves at conferences, and treat other members of the academic community with professionalism and respect. Anything that is contrary to that -- such as gushing about your love of cats for 15 minutes -- is kind of a red flag.... Like, I'm not going to judge you for liking cats, but if you can't control yourself and be professional for a single interview day, how are we going to trust you to behave professionally at a conference or something?!

1 hour ago, MarineBluePsy said:

I've met my share of people that were thrilled to leave their home states because things weren't peachy there, so they may prefer to not get very detailed.  Although I love my home state when I'm elsewhere in the world I'm not overly excited to meet others from there either.  In my experience the overly excited types tend to go straight to the "of course we totally get each other so I can ask you super personal questions and be really nosy because we're alike" or they overshare about themselves and I'm looking for an exit. 

This sentiment was the one I was trying to get across, sorry I didn't communicate very well

EDIT: As a final point, I just wanted to mention this: evaluating candidates sucks, it really does. There are a lot of you, and most of the time y'all all look great on paper. I used to do recruiting for a Wall Street firm, and whew, trying to sift through literally THOUSANDS of applicants is terrifying. At some point, you need to start cutting using *anything* possible. The first rounds of cuts are usually GPA/GRE/easy stuff, but once that's done and you have 300 great candidates, you start cutting based on gut feelings, first impressions, and perceptions of who acted disrespectfully or not. Most of the time, it really isn't personal, but when you have a ton of candidates you need to be selective in ways that aren't always fair. Personally, I would love to admit a cosplaying, anime-loving nerd into my program (mainly because I need a friend to attend PAX and Anime Boston with)... but for the 70-year-old conservative professor emeritus who thinks that kind of thing is bizarre and childish? Not so much :/ 

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by dancedementia

[khunconan]

1 hour ago, dancedementia said:

Sorry I can't respond to everyone directly - there's a lot of good discussion going on here. To clarify some of my points:

1. I don't think it's terrible to have interests outside of academia. But when we're in the middle of our group interview and you're blatantly tossing out unrelated hobbies (in an attempt to do what?) in front of a panel of conservative academics.... it's not exactly the "best foot forward" approach. I'm personally not offended by any of the items I offered as examples (and actually partake in some form of all of them), but there is a proper time to mention "out there" items, and the group interview - where you're being asked about your career goals and your research interests - is not the time or the place. A person who feels the need to "stand out" as a sparkly unique snowflake comes off as trying too hard.

2. I personally get irritated at try-hards and most professors do as well. There is a line between trying hard and being excited about being there. One of the candidates ambushed one of the professors on her way out the door - when she had just announced that she had a meeting to go to - and tried to engage her in a long conversation about a fairly trivial point that could have been asked to anyone else in the room who DIDN"T need to leave (something along the lines of, "Can I substitute X class for Y class" - girl, calm down, you haven't even been accepted!)  Yes, I get you're trying to make a connection and show interest, but disrespecting someone else's time is not the way to go. In my other example (sorry I was typing on my phone and not being clear), there was a LINE of people to talk to us, and this individual straight up cut three people in line to gush in my face. Sorry, no. Expressing glee over being from the same state does not trump common human politeness.

I guess tl;dr - don't be an ass and respect the people you're interviewing with. I've been on both sides of the table and it's *always* the candidates who are respectful that get the most points.

Another thing to think about is that yes, we're choosing candidates based on their personality, but we're also choosing candidates that we think can represent the program well, not make fools of themselves at conferences, and treat other members of the academic community with professionalism and respect. Anything that is contrary to that -- such as gushing about your love of cats for 15 minutes -- is kind of a red flag.... Like, I'm not going to judge you for liking cats, but if you can't control yourself and be professional for a single interview day, how are we going to trust you to behave professionally at a conference or something?!

This sentiment was the one I was trying to get across, sorry I didn't communicate very well

EDIT: As a final point, I just wanted to mention this: evaluating candidates sucks, it really does. There are a lot of you, and most of the time y'all all look great on paper. I used to do recruiting for a Wall Street firm, and whew, trying to sift through literally THOUSANDS of applicants is terrifying. At some point, you need to start cutting using *anything* possible. The first rounds of cuts are usually GPA/GRE/easy stuff, but once that's done and you have 300 great candidates, you start cutting based on gut feelings, first impressions, and perceptions of who acted disrespectfully or not. Most of the time, it really isn't personal, but when you have a ton of candidates you need to be selective in ways that aren't always fair. Personally, I would love to admit a cosplaying, anime-loving nerd into my program (mainly because I need a friend to attend PAX and Anime Boston with)... but for the 70-year-old conservative professor emeritus who thinks that kind of thing is bizarre and childish? Not so much :/ 

 

Thank you for the clarification.

There is one point that still isn't that clear to me. When you talked about candidates "blatantly tossing out unrelated hobbies (in an attempt to do what?) in front of a panel of conservative academics....," did they just bring those hobbies up without being asked? If so, I agree that it's weird and unprofessional. If they just talked about their hobbies because it's a question asked by interviewers/current students, I believe saying "I usually go to anime conferences every week" is a COMPLETELY appropriate answer. Actually, I can't see why going to anime conferences is a weird hobby. Does it imply that the person is otaku (google it if you don't know the term) and thus is quirk/disgusting? Don't you think categorizing people based on some stereotype is inappropriate, especially for psychologists/researchers in psychology? I also can't understand why being part of a burlesque troupe can suggest that a person is weird or uncommitted. Unless a hobby is illegal or morally wrong, no one should be academically judged based on what they like to do in their free time, especially if they are good enough to be invited to the interview.  

Also, if possible, can you clarify the term "unrelated hobbies"? I have no idea what hobbies are related or unrelated (and to what? to academia? to your own hobbies and interest?). Is reading a book related (and what kind of book)? What about listening to music (and what kind of music)?

 

EDIT because I just saw your edit: If the professor tossed that applicant out because of his/her love of anime alone, then I would say the applicant was lucky. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by khunconan

[dancedementia]

19 hours ago, khunconan said:

There is one point that still isn't that clear to me. When you talked about candidates "blatantly tossing out unrelated hobbies (in an attempt to do what?) in front of a panel of conservative academics....," did they just bring those hobbies up without being asked? If so, I agree that it's weird and unprofessional. If they just talked about their hobbies because it's a question asked by interviewers/current students, I believe saying "I usually go to anime conferences every week" is a COMPLETELY appropriate answer. Actually, I can't see why going to anime conferences is a weird hobby. Does it imply that the person is otaku (google it if you don't know the term) and thus is quirk/disgusting? Don't you think categorizing people based on some stereotype is inappropriate, especially for psychologists/researchers in psychology? I also can't understand why being part of a burlesque troupe can suggest that a person is weird or uncommitted. Unless a hobby is illegal or morally wrong, no one should be academically judged based on what they like to do in their free time, especially if they are good enough to be invited to the interview.

It's not so much the content of the hobby itself, but the fact that they're bringing it up, off-topic, over-emphasizing, in the middle of a program interview. I think it's great that people have outside hobbies and are well-rounded people, but when we ask about your involvement in your undergraduate years that led you to choose psychology as a career..... I just think nonchalantly tossing in side hobbies is an attempt at either a brag or not understanding the question. "Right, so in my undergrad, I was involved in a lot of things, like [insert out-there, unrelated-hobbies here], and that took up a lot of my time, but I learned to juggle it well with my commitments in Psi Chi and tutoring and....." I don't know - it might actually just be a pet peeve of mine. It's not the hobby, it's the context in which you bring it up, and it just shows me that you're a poor interviewer. I didn't ask for a laundry list of your extracurriculars - I asked "why psychology"....

In terms of your question about someone's involvement indicating they are uncommitted.... there are definitely some programs who expect 100% from you at all times. Research trumps all. I interviewed for a few programs who straight up told me that my involvement in a semiprofessional dance troupe was concerning - not because of the dance, but because they were concerned that in between rehearsals and performances, I couldn't dedicate proper time to my research. And I can definitely understand this - dance troupes are no joke and eat up a ton of your time.

As for categorizing people based on stereotypes, I don't see why psychologists are to be held to a higher standard than anyone else when it comes to this. Everyone should refrain from assigning negative stereotypes, psychologist or not.

Edited March 4, 2016 by dancedementia

[ClinicalApplicant07]

For those of you that didn't get in this year, what is your plan for the next year? I've been recommended to apply to more schools, add in some counseling psychology programs, and some Psy.D programs. Some professors I've spoken to have said some pretty bad things about Psy.D's but I think it would vary by program. I've seen some great Psy.D programs. I'm also going to try to gain more clinical experience and a few more publications. 

[MarineBluePsy]

14 minutes ago, ClinicalApplicant07 said:

For those of you that didn't get in this year, what is your plan for the next year? I've been recommended to apply to more schools, add in some counseling psychology programs, and some Psy.D programs. Some professors I've spoken to have said some pretty bad things about Psy.D's but I think it would vary by program. I've seen some great Psy.D programs. I'm also going to try to gain more clinical experience and a few more publications. 

Just some food for thought, but I wonder if the mix of programs is a good idea.  Sure there is overlap in training and how the degrees can be used, but they aren't identical.  Years ago I had a professor tell me it was important to research all of the degrees thoroughly, pick one, then stick to it otherwise I'd risk seeming confused.  Once I picked a degree it was easier to decide what to do in order to improve one type of application rather than 2 or 3.   

[marie antoinette]

rejected from GWU Phd.. no reasons mentioned in particular. waiting to hear from alberta. Thinking of applying to Maryland and Columbia's MPH programs.

[MarineBluePsy]

@beyondnervous it's good to hear from you!  I'm sorry this application season didn't work out as you'd hoped, but yes there is life after rejection and you can and should try again.  Landing that research job confirms that you are talented and have a place in the field and there will be a PhD program that will see that.  Waiting until Fall 2017 to reapply is not the end of the world if that will allow you to finish this job (I'm guessing its a contract?) without burning any bridges and significantly improve your applications.  My only suggestion would be with this heavy immersion in research don't neglect the clinical side of things.  Even volunteering a few hours a week with a population you're passionate about or one that is completely out in left field for you will show that recognize the importance of clinical experience.

[ihatechoosingusernames]

2 hours ago, beyondnervous said:

I hope this opportunity allows me to become extremely competitive, and get some more publications under my belt. I literally am in AWE at the fact that I would find such an incredible opportunity so soon, but this just attests to the fact that THERE IS LIFE AFTER REJECTIONS GALS/GUYS (LOL!) and getting in this application round was not in the cards for me (or for those of you who got rejected).

Please feel free to PM me, I am more than happy to share tips about this opportunity or talk about life in general - I want to say I'm fully (emotionally) recovered (LOL SERIOUSLY!) after rejections, so believe me everyone: THIS TOO SHALL PASS! TIME TO GET BETTER AND BECOME THE BEST VERSION OF YOURSELVES BEFORE THE NEXT ROUND! :-) <3

Good to hear from you! I'm not a believer in fate or that "everything happens for a reason," but looking back at where I was when I applied the first time I now realize that I'm in a much better place to be attending graduate school. Unlike you, I wasn't able to find an actual lab position, but instead volunteered at a research lab once a week for almost a year and a half before reapplying. This is totally going to make you the best version of yourself  It is also proof that there is life after rejections. It's tough for sure, but if you're really set on that Ph.D. it's a bump in the road that can be overcome with time and hard work. 

[Plasticity]

On 3/3/2016 at 9:37 PM, ClinicalApplicant07 said:

For those of you that didn't get in this year, what is your plan for the next year? I've been recommended to apply to more schools, add in some counseling psychology programs, and some Psy.D programs. Some professors I've spoken to have said some pretty bad things about Psy.D's but I think it would vary by program. I've seen some great Psy.D programs. I'm also going to try to gain more clinical experience and a few more publications. 

Are you interested in more the clinical or research side? If you are going to apply for PsyD programs I don't think publications are a priority.

A side note, as I've seen many people here apply to programs that were a mix, if you were going to apply to both PsyD and PhD programs then to make sure the PhD programs you are applying to do not have a research focus (clinical-science model of training), that could raise eyebrows. Your apps need to "match up". I only applied to one clinical program out of my four apps and the others were more neuro based and I was asked a lot about why the one clinical program (as I should have been asked since it appears as an odd fit). 

Edited March 19, 2016 by Plasticity

[Applicant 1746]

3 hours ago, Plasticity said:

Are you interested in more the clinical or research side? If you are going to apply for PsyD programs I don't think publications are a priority.

A side note, as I've seen many people here apply to programs that were a mix, if you were going to apply to both PsyD and PhD programs then to make sure the PhD programs you are applying to do not have a research focus (clinical-science model of training), that could raise eyebrows. Your apps need to "match up". I only applied to one clinical program out of my four apps and the others were more neuro based and I was asked a lot about why the one clinical program (as I should have been asked since it appears as an odd fit). 

While I agree that it's important to appear focused, I don't think it's necessary to make sure your applications perfectly "match up" if you have multiple interests or if some of your interests are more flexible depending on whether other criteria are met. For example, I applied to some programs that were more practice-oriented and others that were (much) more research-oriented -- but that's because they all dealt with a particular question/topic I want to work on, and so long as I get to work on that question, the exact balance of research vs. practice isn't too important to me. (Of course it's a different situation if you're *much* more committed to research than to practice, or vice versa, but for those of us who are more in the middle, I think it's fine to apply to a range of programs.)

As far as raising eyebrows -- in general, you'll want to be thoughtful about how you're presenting yourself/your fit to individual programs. While of course you shouldn't lie at any point in the application process, I do think it's okay to selectively offer information to potential programs/advisers. If you have two main but different interests (say, depression and eating disorders), you may want to mention that you applied to x, y, and z depression-focused labs while on an interview for a depression lab, but not mention the eating disorder-focused labs you also applied to. As no one is going to interrogate you and demand that you disclose every single program you applied to, this is perfectly fine. In fact, I had faculty members tell me that it's more than okay to ask letter-writers to tailor their letters to different programs to emphasize your interest/fit for that particular kind of program. So long as you're genuinely interested in all the programs you're applying to, I wouldn't box yourself into one topic/area or one type of program. Besides, you may not even know which fit would be the best for you until you're going on interviews and learning more about the kinds of programs first-hand! (There's only so much you can learn about a program by reading about it before you actually meet and talk with the people in such programs -- I was surprised by how much interviews clarified my priorities for me!) TL;DR: Learn as much as you can about the programs you're applying to and only apply to programs you're genuinely interested in, but if you have multiple interests and/or flexible priorities, don't box yourself into any one thing.

[ClinicalApplicant07]

On 3/19/2016 at 4:17 PM, Plasticity said:

Are you interested in more the clinical or research side? If you are going to apply for PsyD programs I don't think publications are a priority.

A side note, as I've seen many people here apply to programs that were a mix, if you were going to apply to both PsyD and PhD programs then to make sure the PhD programs you are applying to do not have a research focus (clinical-science model of training), that could raise eyebrows. Your apps need to "match up". I only applied to one clinical program out of my four apps and the others were more neuro based and I was asked a lot about why the one clinical program (as I should have been asked since it appears as an odd fit). 

That's great advice, thank you! 

[ClinicalApplicant07]

On 3/20/2016 at 8:00 PM, Applicant 1746 said:

While of course you shouldn't lie at any point in the application process, I do think it's okay to selectively offer information to potential programs/advisers. If you have two main but different interests (say, depression and eating disorders), you may want to mention that you applied to x, y, and z depression-focused labs while on an interview for a depression lab, but not mention the eating disorder-focused labs you also applied to.

Awesome advice, thank you for your input! 

[ayerhead]

School: University of Denver

Area: Clinical Psych PsyD

Rationalization: There really isn't one. I know that my individual interview did not go as well as it should have and I have a 3-year gap in my resume from being a stay-at-home mom.

Comment: This one really stings. I'm regionally bound AND this is the best programmatic fit for me. I guess I'll be brushing up a bit over the next year and applying again next year.

Coping tactics: Crying. Looking at jobs and at licensure to start building recent experience again.