Giving Up on Graduate School Is Really Hard

[BenjaminPQ]

I received my two BAs (psych & phil) in 2007 from a "big state school".

My wife and I got pregnant. Oops. So, I went to work while she finished grad school. I was a full time RA (data, not clinical) in pediatric psychiatry from 2007 to 2010. One publication, 7th author. My wife finished her doctorate and decided to start working. We moved out of state for her job. I reluctantly became a stay-at-home parent with an agreement that would pursue grad school.

Applied to six cognitive psych programs in 2010, rejected by all, not even a call back. Undergrad GPA 3.4, 80th percentile verbal, 50th quantitative on the GRE. I didn't give up.

Decided to volunteer in a lab to gain more research experience and narrow my interests. Found my way into a great lab in 2011 working part time, one-on-one with a young prof on an fMRI publication. The data was already collected, it just needed analyzed and the paper written. We published in 2014. I was the first of four authors because I wrote it and wrote it well. I even came up with a novel analysis that was noted by the reviewers. It won article of the year in a top journal. I went to CA to accept the award. I was proud, fulfilled, happy, and hopeful.

Unfortunately, I was told by this prof that my scores weren't high enough to get in at her institution (in case you're wondering, we worked great together). Basically, a non-starter, don't bother situation. That killed me inside. To know I could do the work and do it well but a standardized test was holding me back, even after I VOLUNTEERED in the department for THREE YEARS working right along side grad students, was crushing. I gave up. I convinced my wife to move us back to our home town so I could at least see my family regularly. Did I overreact? Probably.

That was three years ago. I'm 37 now. Kids are in school full-time and I've got the itch again. This just won't go away. I remember how it felt to be engaged in exciting research, to finally be challenged. I want that back.

The question is, was this professor correct? Is my research experience really not enough to overcome my average GRE scores (assuming I get similar scores when I take the GRE again)? I still find it unfathomable that a committee would select an unknown student fresh out of undergrad over someone with my research experience.

I'm also considering a masters now but I've been told that won't necessarily increase my chances either!

Thanks for listening.

 

 

 

[spunky]

Depends on many things, like the prestige of the program. I did an internship at ETS way back in the day and I wanted to be specifically placed within the research group that handled the GRE because by then I had learned enough Psychometrics to be able to distinguish BS to what seemed interesting. And one of the things I noticed when it came to uni departments asking for more scores and info (stuff that doesn't usually get reported on the website) is that prestigious programs  OBSESSIVELY ask for info and they tend to be interested in all the new GRE bells and whistles. Which makes sense from the point of view of how they sometimes filter candidates. If you're applying to a popular program (like Clinical or Social/Personality) to a prestigious school or lab, the PIs there are going to easily get applications in the mid to upper 100s. NOBODY is going to go through those many applications. Easiest thing to do is set a GPA and GRE threshold and throw everything away that doesn't meet the threshold unless there's something unusually interesting about your application (like an undergrad with several publications in top journals). Also keep in mind a lot of unis with prestigious programs tie funding to GRE scores, and funding can make you or break you around the application season. 

So, like in most cases, the answer tends to be a big "it depends". But the more "average" your application looks, the more the GRE tends to matter. Exceptions are always possible, but I feel the general trend is something along those lines. 

Edited September 28, 2017 by spunky

[BenjaminPQ]

28 minutes ago, spunky said:

Depends on many things, like the prestige of the program. I did an internship at ETS way back in the day and I wanted to be specifically placed within the research group that handled the GRE because by then I had learned enough Psychometrics to be able to distinguish BS to what seemed interesting. And one of the things I noticed when it came to uni departments asking for more scores and info (stuff that doesn't usually get reported on the website) is that prestigious programs  OBSESSIVELY ask for info and they tend to be interested in all the new GRE bells and whistles. Which makes sense from the point of view of how they sometimes filter candidates. If you're applying to a popular program (like Clinical or Social/Personality) to a prestigious school or lab, the PIs there are going to easily get applications in the mid to upper 100s. NOBODY is going to go through those many applications. Easiest thing to do is set a GPA and GRE threshold and throw everything away that doesn't meet the threshold unless there's something unusually interesting about your application (like an undergrad with several publications in top journals). Also keep in mind a lot of unis with prestigious programs tie funding to GRE scores, and funding can make you or break you around the application season. 

So, like in most cases, the answer tends to be a big "it depends". But the more "average" your application looks, the more the GRE tends to matter. Exceptions are always possible, but I feel the general trend is something along those lines. 

So, would you say my application is average? I know my GRE scores are but I'm not sure you could find many applicants with my research experience.

I get the hard truths: there are many, many applicants in a world that only needs a (relatively) few scientists in each subject. In fact,  getting in and graduating is just the beginning. I understand there is a glut of Ph.D.s and it's only going to get worse so finding a jobs after graduation is another struggle all together. When you love science though...

[_kita]

15 minutes ago, BenjaminPQ said:

? I know my GRE scores are but I'm not sure you could find many applicants with my research experience.

Unfortunately, solid research experience isn't that unusual. In psychology programs you essentially have to have solid research and academics to land in even a masters program.

When the job market plummeted about the time of your UGrad, the grad school market became even more saturated. Psychology was one of the worst programs for that saturation because of it's increased popularity. Now schools have really tough choices regarding amazing candidates. 

You will be facing off against students with very similar portfolios and less of a 'gap' between their schooling. I suggest either taking a few non-matriculated classes, retakethe GREs, etc. Get back involved in academics. Then you'll move from an average looking student on paper to a 'whoa this guy's determination is amazing. Yes!'

But do NOT give up. You can and will get in. It may just take more work and resources than you initially planned.

Edited September 28, 2017 by _kita

[BenjaminPQ]

12 minutes ago, _kita said:

Unfortunately, solid research experience isn't that unusual. In psychology programs you essentially have to have solid research and academics to land in even a masters program.

When the job market plummeted about the time of your UGrad, the grad school market became even more saturated. Psychology was one of the worst programs for that saturation because of it's increased popularity. Now schools have really tough choices regarding amazing candidates. 

You will be facing off against students with very similar portfolios and less of a 'gap' between their schooling. I suggest either taking a few non-matriculated classes, retakethe GREs, etc. Get back involved in academics. Then you'll move from an average looking student on paper to a 'whoa this guy's determination is amazing. Yes!'

But do NOT give up. You can and will get in. It may just take more work and resources than you initially planned.

I had lot of typical undergrad "research experience". That was nothing like writing an award winning publication. I hope not all research experience is seen as equal because I will have wasted a lot of time, energy, and sacrifice!

I think you're right, I need to get back into a lab and, of course, retake the GRE. Thanks for the positive vibes and not calling me old!

 

[_kita]

24 minutes ago, BenjaminPQ said:

I had lot of typical undergrad "research experience". That was nothing like writing an award winning publication. I hope not all research experience is seen as equal because I will have wasted a lot of time, energy, and sacrifice!

I think you're right, I need to get back into a lab and, of course, retake the GRE. Thanks for the positive vibes and not calling me old!

 

 You're not. As a heads up, I'm also an "adult learner" who had average gre and gpa scores. I wasn't accepted to doctorals my first round either, but was determined to go back. So I started teaching classes, took on more professional responsibilities, and went back for a master that aligned with my experience - and what I thought my goals were. That led me to another field that I love. And I will probably be well into my 40's by the time I finish a professional doctoral degree.

It is possible. But it does take more time and energy when you're balancing "real world" responsibilities too. I learned to rely on my family & developing connections, ability to relate as a professional, and just sheer determination to push me through. 

And no, not all experience is equal. At the same time, I know so many people with first or second authorships, publications, etc. at the 20-21 year old threshold now that it is seen as good research, but not enough to overcome too many years without any.. Sadly. 

[spunky]

47 minutes ago, BenjaminPQ said:

So, would you say my application is average? I know my GRE scores are but I'm not sure you could find many applicants with my research experience.

I get the hard truths: there are many, many applicants in a world that only needs a (relatively) few scientists in each subject. In fact,  getting in and graduating is just the beginning. I understand there is a glut of Ph.D.s and it's only going to get worse so finding a jobs after graduation is another struggle all together. When you love science though...

I do not know if your application is average or not because "average" depends on who else is in the application pool. Like @_kita said, it is a game of numbers now. If you were at the top 1% of applicants and 1000 people applied, you could be at the bottom of the 10 most talented people for that year. That's the thing with rejections. You have no way of knowing whether you barely missed your chance this year or if it turns out that this year most people who applied had lots of publications in very prestigious journals and it all came down to GRE scores. 

I honestly feel like you should give it at least one more honest chance. Give the GRE everything you've got, maybe try to have another pub or a conference presentation and see how it goes. And if it doesn't end up happening I mean... you have a wife, you have your children, you have a home. No PhD is gonna come close that. 

[PokePsych]

Also note that in Europe we don't do GRE. We don't care about GRE. We don't even take it (except me.. because I want to study in N-America). I think the same goes for Australia and New Zealand. So if you feel GRE is the only thing holding you back, you may want to seriously consider making a big move. 

Honestly, I feel like half the PhDs in my school just couldn't be bothered with taking the GRE. Same goes for all N-Americans in my Master's program who said they basically came to the Netherlands because tuition is cheaper and they don't have to bother with the GRE lol. 

[BenjaminPQ]

17 minutes ago, spunky said:

I do not know if your application is average or not because "average" depends on who else is in the application pool. Like @_kita said, it is a game of numbers now. If you were at the top 1% of applicants and 1000 people applied, you could be at the bottom of the 10 most talented people for that year. That's the thing with rejections. You have no way of knowing whether you barely missed your chance this year or if it turns out that this year most people who applied had lots of publications in very prestigious journals and it all came down to GRE scores.

I find that sooo depressing. It would seem applying to as many programs as possible, every year, would eventually yield results for a decent candidate as long as one remains involved in research.

 

35 minutes ago, spunky said:

And if it doesn't end up happening I mean... you have a wife, you have your children, you have a home. No PhD is gonna come close that. 

For all I've achieved, or hope to achieve, I know the time with my wife and children, especially being able to stay home with my children, will be, by far, my most rewarding work. I chose to stay home, grad school is about the only thing I would have left my kids for. In fact, looking back, I wonder if I chose them over school. Grad school is my second biggest goal, first is seeing these kids grow up. As I type, my wife is reading me When Breath Becomes Air,  a novel about a neurosurgeon who got terminal lung cancer only months away from completing his fellowship, 36 years old. When I read stories like that, I'm glad I haven't just worked my 20's and early 30's away. I have lived well and you're right, I can keep living well without a Ph.D.

Also, I enjoyed my full time RA job in psychiatry. Clinical research gives one the chance to participate in treating or even curing diseases. Very rewarding work.

[BenjaminPQ]

9 minutes ago, Psygeek said:

Also note that in Europe we don't do GRE. We don't care about GRE. We don't even take it (except me.. because I want to study in N-America). I think the same goes for Australia and New Zealand. So if you feel GRE is the only thing holding you back, you may want to seriously consider making a big move. 

Honestly, I feel like half the PhDs in my school just couldn't be bothered with taking the GRE. Same goes for all N-Americans in my Master's program who said they basically came to the Netherlands because tuition is cheaper and they don't have to bother with the GRE lol. 

I told my kids I wouldn't move them again but that might be worth it. My wife would go in heartbeat. She's always wanted to move out of the states.

[eternallyephemeral]

2 hours ago, BenjaminPQ said:

I had lot of typical undergrad "research experience". That was nothing like writing an award winning publication. I hope not all research experience is seen as equal because I will have wasted a lot of time, energy, and sacrifice!

I think you're right, I need to get back into a lab and, of course, retake the GRE. Thanks for the positive vibes and not calling me old!

 

You are still competing with people, especially at top schools, that have more than what you're dismissing as "undergrad "research experience" ". I worked in five-six labs (one was a collaboration) before starting graduate school, was on two papers, multiple international conference posters, managed a lab, supervised undergrads, etc etc etc. And I wasn't even competitive for the top schools I applied at. This was all during my undergrad, when I worked at other jobs at the same time. I'm not trying to self-aggrandize, I'm simply trying to give you a sense of what a person might have who isn't even at the top of their own class.

Many students, especially in cog neuro, either have masters, have worked full time managing labs at Harvard, etc, and those people are who you're applying against. I think it's great for you to apply at any age, and not to give up on your dreams, but I've noticed a lot of older applicants on here expect that not being an "undergrad" with "undergrad experience" is somehow going to be a huge plus for their application. Given that in psychology, most accepted students are right out of undergrad or 1-2 years out having done a masters or worked as an RA full time, they aren't rushing to choose people specifically for their maturity or non-undergraduate qualities.

There are other programs that do care, like business PhDs, but in psych, age/maturity/wisdom/whatever you want to call it, isn't a big part of their decision making process.

 

Also, doing well on the GRE can be learnt. Unless you've done all the practice questions, you haven't practiced enough. I highly doubt that you are unable to improve your GREs to get past the cutoff for the schools you want.

[BenjaminPQ]

10 minutes ago, eternallyephemeral said:

You are still competing with people, especially at top schools, that have more than what you're dismissing as "undergrad "research experience" ". I worked in five-six labs (one was a collaboration) before starting graduate school, was on two papers, multiple international conference posters, managed a lab, supervised undergrads, etc etc etc. And I wasn't even competitive for the top schools I applied at. This was all during my undergrad, when I worked at other jobs at the same time. I'm not trying to self-aggrandize, I'm simply trying to give you a sense of what a person might have who isn't even at the top of their own class.

Many students, especially in cog neuro, either have masters, have worked full time managing labs at Harvard, etc, and those people are who you're applying against. I think it's great for you to apply at any age, and not to give up on your dreams, but I've noticed a lot of older applicants on here expect that not being an "undergrad" with "undergrad experience" is somehow going to be a huge plus for their application. Given that in psychology, most accepted students are right out of undergrad or 1-2 years out having done a masters or worked as an RA full time, they aren't rushing to choose people specifically for their maturity or non-undergraduate qualities.

There are other programs that do care, like business PhDs, but in psych, age/maturity/wisdom/whatever you want to call it, isn't a big part of their decision making process.

 

Also, doing well on the GRE can be learnt. Unless you've done all the practice questions, you haven't practiced enough. I highly doubt that you are unable to improve your GREs to get past the cutoff for the schools you want.

Out of curiosity, what did the students at the top of their class have that you didn't? Did they cure cancer?

I didn't mean to self-aggrandize either. I know I'm not a strong candidate. I'd already have my degree, if I were. I'm just trying to figure out how much my most recent publication increased my chances. Many researchers never get an accolade like "article of the year" in a top journal (or any journal). I figure having that on my application must be worth something. It at least makes me unique, of course, if they never look at my CV, they won't know about it.

[_kita]

23 minutes ago, eternallyephemeral said:

I've noticed a lot of older applicants on here expect that not being an "undergrad" with "undergrad experience" is somehow going to be a huge plus for their application.

Hmm.. If I've ever come across this way, I apologize. My point is usually that in any professional degree professional work experience in the field is highly preferable. That is typically seen in older candidates which is why those cohorts usually have older average ages. Older applicants shouldn't try to mimic the applications of younger students (which many initially try to do). They should embrace their strengths and where they are in life at the time of application just like younger applicants do.

But yes, in a research-driven field like the OP says he's interested in, the cohort is younger.

[Clinapp2017]

Out of curiosity, have you ever considered the possibility that the people you applied to weren't a good match for you on the basis of personality? You can be the best student matched with the best mentor, but at the end of the day one thing I think lots of people on the forums fail to realize is that mentors are picking trainees/collaborators for life that can and will also probably turn into a professional type of friendship. From my experience on the interview trail, there were some people I really could tell I would personally not work well with, and then there's my current mentor who has an awesome personality and work ethic that compliments mine (not to mention they are prolific in the field so I am thrilled to be with them). 

 

This may seem incredibly arbitrary if you think you are super qualified, but it's a fact about life that I think plays a HUGE role in the biases about hiring in any profession. 

 

*note: I am not saying you have a bad personality. I'm saying you may not match well with the people you applied to. Consider aspects of your applications that may portray negative qualities (eg self aggrandizement) that will almost certainly get your app thrown out immediately. Also, coming from someone who also self aggrandizes too often, I also recommend self reflection about the development of humility. To this day I'm grateful to my mentor for taking me on, as they had no reason to really do that because even the most experienced person is still an academic "peon" per se.

 

I hope this was a pragmatic note that might actually be helpful versus stating the obvious or encouraging for the sake of encouraging. 

[PokePsych]

Agree with person above. In the end - FIT seems to be the most important criteria after the initial cut. 

You also want to come across as a motivated, agreeable person. Wording is important - although it's great to for example mention your achievements, be considerate in your precise words. Maybe mention what you learned, how it helped you grow as a researcher but also identify what you can still LEARN.

 

Maybe some motivation for OP:

http://howigotintostanford.com/

[eternallyephemeral]

On 9/28/2017 at 11:39 PM, BenjaminPQ said:

Out of curiosity, what did the students at the top of their class have that you didn't? Did they cure cancer?

I didn't mean to self-aggrandize either. I know I'm not a strong candidate. I'd already have my degree, if I were. I'm just trying to figure out how much my most recent publication increased my chances. Many researchers never get an accolade like "article of the year" in a top journal (or any journal). I figure having that on my application must be worth something. It at least makes me unique, of course, if they never look at my CV, they won't know about it.

Unfortunately no, I don't think cancer has been cured, and if it was, it wouldn't be people in my undergrad psychology program doing it. Some of them had more relevant experience, some of them had first author publications (none of mine were), many of them had better grades, worked with people who were known for their track record of their RAs going to competitive programs, probably had better GREs, etc.

I'm sure there are parts of your application that are very strong, like the publication and the award. Uniqueness is also important, but as someone else said, finding a good fit can be a difficult and frustrating process.

My SO was in a similar spot as you're in (not as much the age part, but not even getting a chance to show his research skill because of poor GREs and such). Unfortunately, sometimes there is no way around it. He didn't get in to any of his 7 schools, and then applied for a masters (instead of a PhD) at a much worse school. Things are going pretty terribly right now, not completely because of the school, but the supervisor and the quality of the facilities would probably have been leagues better if he got into one of the original places. He may be changing his life plans because of this, which sucks, but maybe it'll end up working out better in the end. We're hoping so.

Best of luck getting through those first hurdles!

[eternallyephemeral]

On 9/28/2017 at 11:56 PM, _kita said:

Hmm.. If I've ever come across this way, I apologize. My point is usually that in any professional degree professional work experience in the field is highly preferable. That is typically seen in older candidates which is why those cohorts usually have older average ages. Older applicants shouldn't try to mimic the applications of younger students (which many initially try to do). They should embrace their strengths and where they are in life at the time of application just like younger applicants do.

But yes, in a research-driven field like the OP says he's interested in, the cohort is younger.

You haven't come across this way, not at all. I have noticed, in other contexts, derision or disbelief that schools could choose younger people, with the underlying assumption that they must not have done anything useful in undergrad and therefore have no added value for the program. That can be the case, of course, but it isn't as common as these people were making it out to be.

I absolutely agree that professional degrees often look for older applicants with practical experience. This is one of the main reasons I did not get into a lot of schools I applied to - I did not understand there was a difference in norms and expectations going from psychology to business, for example (both PhD programs). So even within research, those that are more "professionally focused", are looking for a different type of applicant. And that's great!

I absolutely agree that no one should try to be something they're not, and that they should play to their strengths. I also agree that one is not inherently better or worse than another (as in, being younger is not always good), and I recognize that ageism is a barrier, especially in the minds of older people that may feel insecure about going back to school. I believe both types of applicants are important and bring different things to the table. However, for a research-based program (which is the limit of this conversation and of OP's focus), there may not be as many differences between younger applicants and older ones with the same research accomplishments. Yes, not many undergraduates have won a best article award, but they haven't all been doing undergrad-level research experience, aka data entry, as was implied. In competitive fields like psychology, if you only do data entry as your "research" experience, you're not going to get in on that criteria.

[TakeruK]

On 9/28/2017 at 4:38 PM, BenjaminPQ said:

So, would you say my application is average? I know my GRE scores are but I'm not sure you could find many applicants with my research experience.

On 9/28/2017 at 5:13 PM, BenjaminPQ said:

I had lot of typical undergrad "research experience". That was nothing like writing an award winning publication. I hope not all research experience is seen as equal because I will have wasted a lot of time, energy, and sacrifice!

I think you're right, I need to get back into a lab and, of course, retake the GRE. Thanks for the positive vibes and not calling me old!

 

On 9/28/2017 at 8:39 PM, BenjaminPQ said:

Out of curiosity, what did the students at the top of their class have that you didn't? Did they cure cancer?

I didn't mean to self-aggrandize either. I know I'm not a strong candidate. I'd already have my degree, if I were. I'm just trying to figure out how much my most recent publication increased my chances. Many researchers never get an accolade like "article of the year" in a top journal (or any journal). I figure having that on my application must be worth something. It at least makes me unique, of course, if they never look at my CV, they won't know about it.

Here's a perspective from outside the field regarding grad admissions in general, since there are many things in common between fields! Hope you will find this useful.

I would say that the majority of grad schools are not looking for graduate students to solely be an amazing researcher. If they wanted someone that had a strong research track record plus the skills to boot, then they would be hiring a full time research associate or research tech position. Grad schools select candidates that they believe will become great academics with training in their program.

This is why grad admissions are often considered holistically. And usually this means that exceptionalism in one area isn't as important. For example, applicants with a 3.95 GPA and a 3.90 GPA are likely to be lumped together---it may be a lot more difficult to earn a 3.95, but it isn't always valued as much. Similarly, scoring 90th percentile vs. 85th percentile isn't going to give you that much of a boost. And in your case, I think your high achievement in your research experience will certainly make you unique and memorable/distinct in the committee's evaluation, but it's not going to mean a lot more than other applicants with publications and decent research experience. That is, I would say that one cannot count on exceptional excellence in one area to make up for what may be missing in other areas. 

Also, I think it's worth remembering a key difference between applying for graduate programs and applying for a job. For most jobs, the employer is hiring a candidate who already has the qualifications to do what they are looking for. The employer has a need they want fulfilled and they search for the applicant that best fits this need. For most graduate schools though, while the above is still true, grad schools also select candidates based on potential. Incoming students are selected not just because of what they have already accomplished, but what the school thinks they have yet to accomplish under more training and education. So, the potential for great achievement is also valued (in addition to demonstrated ability). I offer this to help put into perspective your disbelief that people with less experience than yours can get into grad school. For academia, I think demonstrated ability is valued but it's not the only thing that matters.

Note: Priorities do vary from program to program. Ultimately, the program wants to pick candidate they think will mature into independent and accomplished academics under their education and some places pick candidates that have such strength in one area that they think their program can make up the other areas. For example, my friend had zero research experience but high achievement in every other area of the application got into a highly ranked, research intensive PhD program. The program provided my friend with excellent research training and now they are an award winning researcher at another top university. So the balance does vary from place to place. But I'd say very few places would pick graduate students solely on one single strength.

So, my advice for better results in the future would be to seek ways to improve your application profile other than your research ability and experience. I'd say you've likely maxed that out in terms of "diminishing returns". I am not sure from your posts if you have kept any contact with academia in the last 3 years? If not, I think rebuilding these networks would be important. Here's where you can use your excellent research background though. Perhaps your credentials can get you started with a position in a lab at a university (i.e. in academia). Volunteer position is OK but paid position would be better! This time, use the opportunity to do more than just research work. Some schools allow staff scientists to sit in on classes or even take one or two classes per semester. Do that. Make sure your boss knows that you're interested in a PhD program . Consider redoing the tests. Take actions that show an admissions committee (and your letter writers) that you are serious and highly motivated to become a scholar in your field. 

[TommySotomayor]

Another INCREDIBLY important thing that (I think) no one has touched on yet is the role of your personal statement(s) and letters of recommendations.  As @Takeruk pointed out, admissions committees (ideally) evaluate an applicant's profile holistically.  Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that your personal statements are succinctly written and actually answer the questions in the prompt.  Also, we all have a tendency to self-aggrandize (especially when you're a faceless applicant in a sea of other faceless applicants), so, if you haven't already, seek opinions from several sources on your statements.  They'll aid you in crafting a statement that is palatable to the reader (i.e., doesn't include cringeworthy self-endorsements), yet still emphasizes what unique and positive qualities you have to possess.  Also, since you plan on going into academia, committees will pay attention to how well you write, given that you will writing research papers, applications for fellowships/scholarships, and grants.  Therefore, please do not neglect this portion of your applications!  

Obviously, you may have already done these things, but it seems that many of the threads on this site revolve around finding ways to compensate for an subpar GRE score and/or GPA.  And while your score in the 50th percentile on the quantitative portion will definitely hurt your chances, this can be improved upon.  Additionally, and I cannot reiterate this enough, your personal statement(s) are extremely important.  Basically, these statements are the admissions committee's first, and probably only, exposure to your writing abilities.  So, these statements should be written such that they immediately catch and hold the reader's attnetion.  Also, especially in cog neuro, I think it's important to describe what kind of research you're interested in conducting while trying to be as detailed as possible (i.e., you don't have to write a proposal).

Finally, I wonder how strong your letters of recommendation are.  I'm assuming that most programs require three ref letters, so if only one is strong and the rest are blasé (because they aren't very familiar with you or your work), that will certainly factor in.  I apologize if some of these questions/comments have already been answered, but I'm extremely tired and was only able to skim over the thread.  

Best of luck.

Edited October 4, 2017 by TommySotomayor