Don't try to work with more than 1 prof at a time, you would be spreading yourself way to thin. I have alot of experience with undergrad research so I'll tell you my experiences. When i first got to uni, I was on a need based scholarship that required me to work 10 hours a week on campus. After getting fired from some menial jobs like library work or working in the gym, I was given one last chance to work directly for a prof in computational math. I didn't even have a resume at this point, but the prof didn't have to pay me and i would get kicked out of school if I couldn't find something so he said what the hell and took a flyer on a me.

This ended up being pretty much the perfect type of research for me to do at that time. I had pretty much no understanding of anything, but the topics that he was doing required pretty much no outside knowledge and could be done if you are reasonably bright and work hard enough. A month or so in, I was basically a full member of his team and I ran hot so I was able to publish 3 papers, and as first author on 1. I was spending way more than 10 hours but I didn't really care as I was having fun.

After freshman year, my focus started shifting to more pure math topics. I got lucky and a very famous prof who was doing something very close to what I thought I was interested agreed to take me based on some intense lobbying from my first adviser. This prof hardly ever works with undergrads and made it clear that if I wanted to work with him he would treat me no different than from a senior level grad student. I insta-accepted. I figured that I already was basically a grad student in a different field so if I worked as hard as I did before, which i was willing to do, I'd be fine.

Sophomore year was pure hell. My new adviser was insanely demanding. Multiple times he threw me out of his office for wasting his time with gibberish and such ill formed concepts. I remember once when he called a method I tried to use on a problem unbelievably sophomoric. In my head I was thinking no **** sherlock, i'm a sophomore !!! This is the only time I remember crying about school/work and I did it multiple times, luckily only in front of my roommate and girlfriend though. I went from having 3 papers as a freshman to not even sniffing a publishable idea my whole sophomore year. I also failed 2 non-math classes partly as a result of trying so hard in research. To his credit, my adviser never threatened to fire me though I thought about quitting practically everyday and maybe even taking a year off from school to do nothing and play poker.

For some reason I stuck in there and by the summer before my junior year things were starting to gel. One of my favorite undergrad experiences was over christmas my junior year. I had stumbled onto some pretty useful and unexplored ideas mostly by luck which involved a connection between 2 different topics in algebraic geometry. I actually emailed my adviser on Christmas morning at 4:45 AM (after staying up for like 30 hours working on it) with a summary of my idea. (His graduation gift to me was a framed copy of this email with the time and date on it which is one of my prized sentimental possessions ) He wrote me back and said it was wrong for a few different reasons. Some I knew would be raised and I had already worked out but a few were things that I had missed and I had to go back and fix. By the time I saw him again after New years I had it fully worked out and in near publishable form.

We published it and I was even invited to give a talk at a few other schools. From here on out everything was great, I got quite a few citations and started getting emails with questions from people whose work i had admired greatly from other schools. When it was time to go to grad school, my adviser told me to give him a list of all the schools I was interested in and that I could pick ultimately anyplace but my undergrad institution. I had 5 schools and he called them all and got them to pay for plane tickets/accommodations and arranged meetings with profs in the fields close to what I had done. After I made my decision he called the department head for me and i was accepted the next day without having to fill out a formal application.

Now my old adviser is the person I call when I get stuck or frustrated with research. I've asked him why his was so hard on me at the beginning and he said that almost everybody in our field gets broken once and it is easier the earlier it happens (I joked that he was probably thinking of chickenpox ). He also claims that he knew I could handle it but I'm not sure he could know that as i sure as hell didn't think i could initially. So i look back at the whole experience with incredible fondness but by no means was it an enjoyable experience every step of the way.

wow, that is a pretty incredible story. i think for me it is sort of a blessing and a curse that my professor currently isn't working with any other students. it is good because his attention seems to be focused on this project but is a negative as he doesn't seem to be currently actively researching so i'm not sure if he plans to go to that sort of full scale research with me.

I just remembered a funny story related to this in which I had to set some sort of record. During my second semester i was taking a course in computational methods of mathematics. The prof for the class has read my freshman year paper and recognized me since he worked with my adviser. He told me the first week that he wanted me to give a guest lecture in a month or so about my paper. I did this and things went well and people asked questions and he was generally pleased.

The problem was that when our final project was due that was almost all of our grade, I was trying so hard with research that i didn't have time and turned in a horribly incomplete final project. In a class of 22, i got the absolute lowest grade out of anybody despite being invited to give a guest lecture!!!! I got a pretty harsh email at the end of the semester from the prof saying how disappointing my performance was.

Yeah, it would be great if you were his only student and he still intended to do real research. How old is he? If he is getting up there, he might be looking to slow down more than devoting alot of effort into doing something new.

that is the problem, he is 77. from his mathematical geneology page it seems he hasn't been a Ph.D advisor for anyone since 1999. i think that he still publishes some mathematical problems/puzzles/games in things like the american mathematical monthly but his research homepage seems to be extremely out of date, looks like it was last updated in 1992 so who knows. looking around the internet i found a list of publications not from him but it has much more recent publications as early as last year which is encouraging. i feel this is probably me being overly concerned when i have a good thing going for me so i should probably be happy where i am

edit: on a lighter note, apparently recently he published a paper titled "Hypercube Tic-Tac-Toe" which seems like a pretty awesome idea

+1. Max's story about publishing 3 papers as a freshman is awesome, but by no means should it be your benchmark.

Yeah, i wouldn't worry too much about finding the perfect adviser when you've only had 1 year of college. Doing anything puts you ahead of the curve and paradoxically having research experience to put on your resume will help alot when you are applying for positions to get research experience.

There's some really helpful advice in this thread. I'm glad I stumbled across it. Also, Max, that was an awesome story. Where was that at?

I'm going to be a senior next year in psychology. GPA is 3.8, 3.99 in psych classes. I don't have much research experience - I had a menial job in a lab for just one semester while studying abroad. But I am now working on my honors thesis. How much weight will that carry, relative to, say two or three years of working in the same lab?

I'm thinking that even though I'll have completed my thesis, I should probably also spend my senior year working in a lab. I don't really want to, because even though I enjoy doing research, my plate is kind of full for this year. I'd like to spend more time taking classes outside of my major, like economics, just to build general life knowledge. But if I work in a research lab, that would probably come at the expense of taking classes like that. How valuable would more lab work be on an application? Another thing to consider is that I'll be applying around November. On the application, it will say I've worked in the lab for only three months so far.

Another additional benefit of working in a lab is that I'd likely get another recommendation letter. The problem is this: My thesis mentor works closely with the prof whose lab I'd like to be in. I'd like to be in his lab because his research is a bit more interesting than my mentor's. Also, I think my mentor could already write me a good letter. I have two solid candidates; I need a third. Is it a slap in the face if I work in his lab, after my mentor took me on and helped me with my thesis?

Last thing: The GRE...I got a 1520 (760/760) on SATs and figured that GRE would be no trouble. I've been studying and mostly it is review. For math, I'm getting around 600 on practice tests. Pretty low. But for vocab, I'm getting like 550s. WTF? I think my vocabulary has markedly improved in university, yet my score has fallen. Are the practice tests offered by companies such as Princeton Review notoriously difficult? That is the only explanation I can come up with. I can't understand why else I'd be performing so much worse.

I'm looking at mostly top 10 programs - UC Berkeley, U of I, Stanford. I'd also like to go abroad, but it's difficult to find information on foreign programs and funding.

I'd spend your time prepping for the GRE instead. If you get a 1400+, then with your GPA, you're likely to get into a lot of top grad programs in Psych. I can't even begin to count how many students reject this advice, waste a bunch of time in labs, blow off the GRE, then cry because they got rejected at all 15 schools they applied to.


The practice tests are not anymore difficult than the real thing. You have a lot of work to do if you're stuck at 1150. The math section is typically easier than the SAT, but 4 years off will mess up your abilities. Spend a lot of time doing the math problems over and over and get used to the patterns.

The verbal section is typically a lot harder than the SAT. Basically, you need to memorize the 1000+ words in the PR book and practice the different types of sections.

Some schools require the GRE Psych test as well. It's a pain, but not that hard if you study the Psych 101 book for awhile.


Disclaimer: If you're going into Clinical Psych, then all the above doesn't really apply. No one knows what goes on in the heads of Clinical Faculty when they choose who they want for grad students.

Anyone here completed/doing a phD in education? I'm looking into the UCLA program and they estimate 3-4 years for completion...what makes it easier/shorter than other phD programs?

Because Education is notorious for being one of the easiest, and least rigorous, degrees out there with almost no focus on research or quantitative methods. And is it a Ph.D. or Ed.D. that you're looking at?

The Ed.D degree, as the poster above listed, is significantly less rigorous than other academic Ph.D's. Usually, you are required to complete a "research project" every 1-2 years and write a 40-50 page report as opposed to a complete dissertation. That said, there ARE still decent job prospects with this degree, particularly in school administration. If you want to teach, however, it's a complete waste of time (if you have an MA/MS in another field, it might get you more money, but that's about it).

I have not ever heard of a Ph.D in education.

They are quite common actually. UCLA (and most other good schools) has several Ph.D. options in their Education dept.

Ok, let me get this straight:

1. You have very limited research experience, and what you do have was only grunt work

2. You are more interested in taking courses that are interesting but unrelated to psychology than you are in doing psychological research

3. Your practice GRE scores are mediocre

And from this, you not only think you should be going into a PhD program in psychology, but you also think that you can get into a top 10 program? The most important factors into getting into grad school are GRE scores, research experience, and good letters of recommendation about your research skills.
Unless you have some kind of other skills, experiences, or accomplishments you haven't mentioned here, I don't see how you have any chance of getting into a top 50 program, let alone a top 10. I think you need a bit of a reality check.

Also, from the tone of this, you don't even seem all that interested in doing research...why do you want to grad school in the first place? If grinding out hours in a lab is less interesting to you than learning about Economics, maybe you should rethink your plans.

If you are going to do it, thought, I'd advise you to a year off of school to work as a research assistant in a lab where you can make an intellectual contribution and learn how research is done, as well as put together a track-record and a letter of recommendation that will give you at least a shot of getting into a decent grad school.

Well tbh I'm mostly looking for a degree to fallback on in case poker goes through the ****ter. My ideal "fallback job" (and one i would like to pursue after poker if it stays profitable long enough) would be a high school teacher, but I can't live with the abysmal salary prospects. I'm stuck between an MBA or phD./Ed.D in edu...how long does it take to enter the workforce in education and obtain a respectable position like principal or superintendent? I'm actually pretty lost as to how you even enter the workforce after completing the degree.

That is what I have complete so far. But I spent the past semester working on an honor's thesis. It's research mostly designed and carried out by me. It will be finished right around the time that I'll be applying. It's kind of hard to gauge, but from the thesis director, it seems like a big deal. But I was asking in that in my other post. How does a completed honors thesis compare to two or three years of working in the same lab?

I'll address this below.

This is a big concern of mine at the moment, but I think it will end up okay. My verbal scores can only increase so much because I am not going to be able to memorize 10,000 words. But I don't think it's unrealistic for me to get a 750 on math and 650 on the verbal if I put in the effort to study.

I appreciate that. Honestly, it is really difficult to get a straight answer from anybody at my university about where we stand and how we'll look to grad schools.

My thinking is that I will have 6 years of Ph.D lab work and probably the rest of my career to do psych research. Before I jump into it headfirst, I'd like to have a better background in related topics. I think it is really valuable to have knowledge in other areas to bring into psych research. For example, I think that a lot of economic decisions are interesting from a psychological point of view, but at the same time, I think it's foolish to focus on a psychological point of view in absence of a sound understanding of the core concepts.

One of the only respectable advisers I have spoken to recommended the same thing. If I could get a paid RA position, I would jump at it. The timing makes things difficult, however. Applications are due by around January at the latest, and I probably wouldn't be able to secure a position until April or May, after working in a lab for the year. If I decide in advance to take the year off, and then I am not offered a paid position (most likely) then I am in a tough place. My scholarship runs out, and then I'd need to live at home. The closest university to my house would be a forty minute train ride, and I'd be volunteering for the lab. Given that scenario, I'd much rather just go straight to grad school. Your thoughts?

It sounds like you are recommending that I work in a lab this year as well. What do you think about the question I posed in my first post? Assuming I have a choice, do I work in my mentor's lab, or her colleague's lab, who's research is more interesting?

This is all very good advice, but i would qualify that last paragraph by saying that IF he doesn't get in this year, then do the extra year thing. I fully suspect that if he gets a 1400+ on the GRE, then he'll be accepted into one of the top 25 programs. Somebody will want him, assuming he finds a faculty match and does all the right things leading up to the application.

I had almost no lab experience as an undergrad (just ran subjects for half a semester), probably had mediocre letters from professors who barely knew me (but knew i aced their classes), took all the easy classes and avoided all the hard ones (no AP classes), did not do an honor's thesis, and i got into every single program (8) i applied to (including Illinois, Michigan, Carnegie Mellon, etc). High GPA and GRE goes a long way. So does emailing faculty everywhere and building a rapport with them. And no, i did not have any special minority/disabled status to help me.

The bottom line is that most faculty look at the numbers (GPA and GRE). If you have them, they forgive the lack of the qualitative stuff. If you don't have the numbers, then it's extremely rare to overcome that with the other stuff.

It's like getting tenure at a major research university... you publish or perish. If you publish, they forgive the crappy teaching. If you don't publish, your awesome teaching is pretty meaningless.

Ah, I was thinking this was just some kind of theoretical/lit review paper...IO didn't realize it was a project. So you actually constructed/conducted empirical research? If this is the case, then that would be pretty much the equivalent to working in the lab, and certainly be held in higher regard than drudge work, given that you were the intellectual driver here.

One thing that might make you feel better is that I scored much better than the actual GREs than I did on any of the practice tests. I was scoring about 650-700ish when I was doing timed practice tests, but scored in the mid-high 700s on all sections (there were 3 back then) for the actual test. I still don't know why that was the case. But it definitely changed the range of schools I applied to.

I kinda came down on you with this, but your thinking is actually right on here. When I was in grad school, I certainly wish I had taken more classes (e.g., biology and chemistry) when I was an undergrad to give me a broader background, but by the time i knew i needed them it was too late. If you are taking classes from other areas that are going to give you a broader and deeper insight into questions you want to research, that can only be a plus. And even if it's stuff you're just curious about that might not be related to research. It will make you a better researcher and person. So go for it here.

Given the economy and your situation, I guess I'd agree with Peter's take here: apply to grad school, and if you don't get in, then do this as a second/backup option.

[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, getting more research experience under the guidance of a someone else is good. Even if you just started and don't have any products from it when you're applying, showing that you are active in research will help. As to how your mentor reacts to it, it depends on whether he's a selfish douche or not. As long as he's a reasonable, decent human being, he should realize that it is in your best interest to gain more experience by working on different projects and with different people (not to mention getting another good letter). If he's close with this other person, he should even be willing to help facilitate it, putting in a good word for you.

So, i guess you're still left with the time management issue....obviously you can't do all the things you'd want/need to do. I'd say try your hardest, put your head down and just try to grind as much as possible with research and classes, reducing time spent on other things (e.g., poker). It will be a tough year, but you would probably look back on it as worth it.

I was co-author of two papers under review at an APA journal, took every math class i could, had great letters, and I still didn't get into Carnegie Mellon. So FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

Maybe it's because on my application I said I wanted Herb Simon to be my advisor...I was a bit naive

Hehe...

You still got into UCLA. It's not like UCLA is crap... although i can't imagine why you'd turn down UIUC for a lesser school.

Thanks, smudgie. The more I think about it, the more I actually can see myself enjoying the lab work this fall. I really do love his research.

Besides making myself a competitive candidate with GRE's, grades, research experience, letters, I'm also in the process of sorting out where I'd like to go. I've been looking at this http://www.socialpsychology.org/ranking.htm as a guide to which schools are most prestigious. Most of it's not too surprising Stanford, lots of Ivies near the top. But for example, UCSF is ranked really low. I'd have assumed it has a strong program considering Ekman worked there. So that kind of jumps out at me.

So a few things about that: First, how reliable is such a list, and how much does it apply to me? I would be content to go to a trash program, as long as I had a solid advisor, the university supported me, and it gave me decent career prospects. Until this point I have just assumed that the more prestigious university I go to, the better opportunity I will have to carry out good work and establish myself. But right now I'm thinking of a case of a prof I know who went to two top universities for undergrad and Ph.D and now is an assistant professor at a mediocre school. I'm sure a great research could do great research anywhere, but a good program also helps. How seriously should I consider the program's prestige? Say I have a choice between a mediocre school in a nice area or a very strong school in a place I'd rather not live - is my career gravely compromised if I do my Ph.D at, say University of Hawaii as opposed to UIUC or UCLA?

And another issue is that I'm having a lot of difficulty finding any information on social psych programs in Europe or Australia. It seems that many of the Ph.D programs require you to already have MA or MSc. Some universities offer degrees in English, others do not. And I haven't been able to find anything at all on funding. Any helpful links or knowledge about how grad programs work in Australia, England, Holland, Germany?

max raker, if you are still checking this thread would you mind elaborating on "When it was time to go to grad school, my adviser told me to give him a list of all the schools I was interested in and that I could pick ultimately anyplace but my undergrad institution."?

is that just because of the exclusivity of harvard's math/physics programs or was there another reason?

Yeah, that was sort of vague. My adviser was of the mindset that you shouldn't do your undergrad and grad schooling at the same institution if you can avoid it. Its sort of tempting to stay in the same place since you know everybody and understand all the department BS. But he thinks it better to go somewhere else and get exposed to different people and different BS. I was at Princeton, which was asked earlier.

One famous person doesn't make a program top 10. If you look at the top 10 programs like UIUC, UCLA, Yale, Stanford, etc, you'll see lots of famous people. Heck, walk down the hallway of the UIUC psych building and a ton of the names on the door are also in your Psych 101 textbook.

That could be a terrible mistake, especially if you want to go into academia later on.


You assumed correctly. There are exceptions to every rule, but in general, this is true. For example, everyone is willing to hire an Illinois PhD. Illinois is not willing to hire people from trash schools (except in rare occasions where their pubs outweigh the school ranking).

This is an orthogonal issue, and one that you shouldn't conflate with your earlier issues. Lots of people from the top 10 schools go to mediocre schools for many reasons. One is that they just want to be a big fish in a little pond. Another is that the school will give them better lab space, more startup money, etc. A third is that they get their pick of the grad students. A fourth is that they like the city/location. And on and on. The key is that the ones who got their PhDs from the top 10 schools get to choose whether they want to go top-top or mediocre. This is, of course, assuming they pan out and are as awesome as they should be (i.e. lots of pubs). And in some areas, you have to work your way up with a postdoc, mediocre schools, etc.


Easy choice. Go to UIUC or UCLA. There are exceptions to this, if you happen to find a really famous person to work with in a mediocre school, but you can't go wrong going with top 10.

If you're going to Social Psych, then good luck. The competition is brutal, it's brutally hard to get a job afterward in academia (120+ candidates applying for one position per school), and the alternatives are not really plentiful. You can get a "job", but it won't be worth the effort you put into the PhD.

On second thought, my post above generalizes too much and makes it all sound simplistic. It's much more complex than that, but there's no way to explain all the nuances until you've lived them. It's like poker. Go with the high probability hands and avoid the low probability ones.