That’s yet to be seen. You haven’t started the most important part of your application: research! Doing good research isn’t trivial. Just because some kid does 4 years of undergrad research doesn’t mean that kid will go to an awesome graduate school. People routinely gloss over this point. You need to accomplish something meaningful in your undergraduate research in order to be competitive.

I would argue that the most important thing about an application is the Letter of Recommendations. You’ll need 3 LORs from professors that can genuinely speak to your academic potential. The only way they can do that is if you are good and if you accomplish something.

Don’t take this the wrong way – your enthusiasm and confidence is fantastic. If anything, it would be great to see you do well.

well the research i am less worried about because i started that early. the professor i am working with has no grad students at the moment and i believe i am the only undergrad he is working with and through our robotics team i could get another one potentially. the only reason i am less worried about that is that i have already started doing research with someone likely to write a potent recommendation. obviously this doesn't imply that i will actually end up publishing something useful but it at least gives me the max possible time to do so.

These things are all well and good, but if it's clear you can't think your way out of a paper bag, you're not getting in no matter how good your grades and other scores are.

Most good grad schools are most concerned about your ability to develop and implement an interesting and good research project. Any shortcomings thereafter are basically a way to keep you from NOT getting in. Best bet is to develop a rapport with at least one potential advisor who will serve as an advocate for you.

getting involved with someone who is research-active is key, and if you get published (particularly as first author), you are effectively guaranteed admission.

I got my PhD in Cognitive Psychology from UCLA (1998), and also was accepted into UIUC (which was a cloooooose 2nd...it was almost a coinflip) and some other top schools, and in my experience, the only things that really matter are GPA, GREs, and research experience/letters of recommendation.

GPA is more of a threshold thing...as long as you are above a certain level (e.g., 3.5), you're fine. Obviously, the higher the better, but if they are trying to decide between two candidates and one has a 3.7 and the other has a 3.8, that's not going to weigh on the decision.

GREs are very important; definitely take them seriously, study, take practice tests, etc. Again, I think they act as a threshold; as long as you are above a certain level you are ok, but if you are below that level, you won't be seriously considered. What the level is obviously depends on the school, and the math is definitely more important than the verbal. I think GREs are scored differently now than when i took them, but someone with a 750 math and 550 verbal was likely to be seriously considered, whereas someone with 550 math and 750 verbal likely wouldn't have a chance. The APA graduate school guide shows (or at least used to) average GRE scores for incoming grad students...to some extent, after you get your scores back, choose schools that fit in your range.

Given that you are above threshold on the other two, I think research experience is what separates people from the pack. As far as research goes, it's good that you are getting a lot of experience, but I would consider putting more time and effort into fewer projects rather than spreading yourself out too thin. Producing quality products (papers, grant apps) is very intensive and time consuming, and will be very hard to do when you are working across several different projects in different labs. I think in this situation, depth is more important than breadth. They are not expecting you to be a well-rounded researcher at this point; they are the ones who will train you for that. What they want is an indication of your general abilities and your ambitiousness/seriousness, which is more clear from steady work in one lab. Working in multiple labs will possibly give off the impression that you don't know what you want to do or can't be focused on one line of research. Of course, this is just my opinion; there might in fact be advisors who seek out undergrads with varied interest and experiences. So if you really want to work in these different labs because you have varied interests and want to learn about different aspects of the field, then definitely do so. But I think it's much better to have one really strong letter of rec than to have several medium ones. So make sure that you keep one line primary.

As far as volunteer work in soup kitchens, etc., it will not make a difference, so don't do it solely for this purpose. Showing leadership is good, and as you probably know most profs. are strongly liberal, so including that VP of college Democrats can't hurt (if it was for Republicans, I'd tell you to leave it out).

Feel free to PM me with any specific questions. Good luck to you!

I just asked someone else about this and wanted to get some other opinions. Is it possible for someone with a business background (MBA) to go into a Cognitive Psychology Ph.D program? Has anyone seen this. GREs and GPA won't be an issue, but prior academic research might be an issue.

I can't speak directly about MBA's, but there were several former lawyers in our program, and AFAIK none of them had any relevant prior research experience. But they were smart people who had demonstrated excellence in another field, and so they were seen as having high potential to succeed. And they did, for the most part.

So, if you had good grades in your MBA program and can put together a good application, absolutely you could get into a program. And the MBA would y be a strong asset if you were interested in doing research in behavioral economics or decision making, where your business knowledge and experience would give you some particular insight.

Ty for the response. This is exactly the type of research that I would be interested in doing.

This document is pretty helpful for anyone interested in computer science or related areas, although I don't agree 100% with everything in it:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~harchol/gradschooltalk.pdf.

In particular, I don't think you need to know exactly what you want to do after getting a PhD to make it worthwhile. I think anyone who is creative and likes doing research should strongly consider getting a PhD.

Also, I am a PhD student in computer science (focusing on artificial intelligence) at Carnegie Mellon; feel free to PM me questions if you think I can be helpful.

FYP. It's important to understand the inherent randomness involved in the grad school admissions process. (I'm PhD from the top evolution program in the country, btw.) A LOT of it is fit, and for every example anyone throws out, a counter-example can easily be provided. For instance, I've known students who have had gpa <3.0 but with several pubs get into top programs. Similarly, I've seen 4.0 idiots get rejected from comparably good programs. GPA and GRE are usually handy quantitative reasons to reject someone.

Oh yeah--here is THE NUMBER ONE GUARANTOR that you will get into grad school: SECURE YOUR OWN FUNDING BEFORE YOU APPLY OR DURING THE PROCESS. This is the ONLY surefire way to get in. I cannot name a single applicant who had secured, e.g., an NSF predoctoral fellowship and did not get accepted into the program of their choice.

Here are a few links to "advice to grad students" that come more from natural sciences than physical/comp sciences, but the advice is generally universal.
Also, much of it is geared toward how-to-be-a-grad student, but the sooner these things are understood, the better.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~azuma/hitch4.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~halllab/Grad...destAdvice.pdf
http://www.indiana.edu/~halllab/Grad...oStearnsMA.pdf
http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/...entSuccess.pdf

http://www.lovelab.id.ucsb.edu/revenge.html

This couldn't be more wrong. It has been discussed ad nauseum on Science Careers forum. It is also cogently summarized in pp 6-7 of the document linked to by beserious.

http://scforum.aaas.org/

Yeah that was part of the document I disagree with. I have seen many examples of people who loved grad school and ended up doing something after getting their PhD other than what they anticipated. For example, a friend here just started a hedge fund after graduating and has no regrets on getting his PhD -- he is even continuing to work on his research. He also probably would not have been able to start the fund w/o his PhD, because that was crucial in getting backed by an existing fund.

I am another example -- I wasn't sure exactly what I wanted to do afterwards, but I knew I really liked doing research. I'm still not 100% sure what I want to do now, though I have a much better idea. But in any case, I love grad school and it was definitely the correct decision to come.

I agree that the generic advice "You need to know what you want to do after you get your PhD" is probably a good rule of thumb, but there are exceptions.

wow, just spent about half an hour reading through that and it is really helpful, thanks a ton. that is exactly what i was wondering about, definite bookmark

There's a difference between saying "You need to know what you're going to do after you finish the PhD" and "You should be open to doing things other than tenure-track faculty gigs at R1 universities." The former is overly restrictive and should apply to only a few; the latter is the hallmark of an open mind, without which the PhD is not deserved.

This is true, but if you are capable of doing this, then you are another breed of student.

I wanted to say this because, if I thought as an undergrad that this is what I would have to do to get into grad school, I would've had a nervous breakdown. No need to freak anyone out here.

Yes, it will essentially guarantee your admission to any program you want, but it's not necessary. I know of almost no one who has done this, and FWIW I'm in a top 3 Biostatistics PhD program. Maybe it is more common in other fields, but I still can't imagine it being anywhere close to the norm.

Never, never said one HAD to secure funding beforehand, but rather it would guarantee a slot. Even applying for one, and putting on a cv "fellowship pending" helps. The process of developing a grant proposal is useful in and of itself in helping to clarify thoughts and thought processes.

In the program I came from, there were (of ~40-50 students) 3 NSERCs, 2 NSF predocs, and an EPA STAR.

so what does it generally take to have a shot at funding? i know the Putnam winner gets the same sort of thing, is it all on that level of being a superstar?

Golomb is certainly skilled in putting together grant apps. Also, talk to grad students in the department about their funding. It's likely someone is on an NSF predoc.
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=6201

Here are the recent USC NSF recipients. You should contact them for advice. I doubt they'd shun you.

Liew, Sook-Lei Psychology - Cognitive Neuroscience
Frantz, Carie M Life Sciences - Microbiology
Cunningham, Samantha Irene Engineering - Bioengineering and Biomedical
Pendleton, Scott James Physics and Astronomy -
Mead, Ross Alan Comp/IS/Eng - Artificial Intelligence (including Robotics, Computer Vision and Human Language Processing)

the problem is as of now he doesn't have any grad students working with him i think and i think most of what he does is teaching/going to conferences. also the work i am doing with him isn't in a lab, it is more independent so i don't end up having a ton of 1 on 1 time with him (and he sort of has a tendency to do most of the talking when we meet). i may try to move to a lab with a professor where i can do more hands on research rather than independent research. i'd like to at least stay with golomb long enough so that he will be a help when it comes time to apply to grad school as he seems like he could be a big influence.

My whole philosophy on the Ph.D thing is that you probably shouldn't be doing it as a means to an end, but rather because you really enjoy the graduate school process. I mean obviously you can and should use the degree to your advantage someday, but that probably shouldn't be your main motivation. I would imagine that you probably wouldn't like a lot of the jobs that you truly need a Ph.D for all that much unless you enjoy grad school as well. Otherwise there are generally easier ways to climb up whatever ladder you are looking to climb. That being said I don't think its necessary to have an end goal in mind when you start or are applying for a Ph.D program, as long as you enjoy the process. You may find that your interests change dramatically and plenty of doors will open up along the way.

At the earliest, you can apply to the NSF GRFP as a graduating senior.

http://www.nsfgrfp.org/how_to_apply


NSF GRFP results come out in April (Full results came out in May this year). You hear back from Graduate schools January-March. I'm sure there are some that can secure funding before applying to schools by taking a year off, but I wouldn't advise this route because it is arguably more difficult to get this type of funding than getting into a high profile PhD program. Other prestigious funding orgs work like this as well.

Were you cohorts with Dom, Jim and Aaron?

I'm Aaron Who might you be?

Luck.

You apply, and hopefully the things that you bring to the table make you stand out more than the next guy to the crew reviewing your app. I got a NDSEG fellowship for 3 years, but not an NSF. It just depends.

OP,

You are setting yourself up very well for grad school. Definitely keep asking questions, but I wouldn't worry about it at all. Some specific recommendations:

1) Get your GPA up. 3.7 is not bad, but you don't want it to be a reason for them to compare you negatively to anyone else.

2) Get at least 1 publication with your advisor. Any more than 1 will set you apart in a good way. It will not be held against you if you haven't published.

3) Get good letters. Plural. You should have at least 2 solid letters. So if your advisor collaborates with someone else in the department, get to know him as well. Take a class or two with each, so that they can say something positive about you in the lab and in the classroom. Lab is more important.

4) Ask your advisor the questions you're asking here. Keep a dialogue open with him, and he'll want to help you as much as possible. He'll probably call/email people he knows on your behalf if he likes you.

5) Ask yourself if you'd go to grad school if it wasn't going to help your career. Think of grad school as taking 5 years off to join the peace corps or something. You don't do it because it will help you later on; you do it because you have a passion, and it's something you really want to engage in and experience.

I'm a math PhD student at Michigan, but I might as well be in EECS. There is a fine line between mathematics and theoretical CS. Feel free to PM whenever. I'd like to hear what you're working on, too.