Jump to content
Urch Forums

2016 Ask a Current Ph.D. Student Thread


law123

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi everyone,

 

Looks like the beginnings of another application season is here. In the spirit of last year's "ask a current student thread", here is the start of this cycles questions.

 

Last year's thread can be found here:

 

http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-business/154046-2015-applicants-ask-current-student-thread.html

 

Good luck to all aspiring applicants this year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under revision implies past first round of reviews, hence immensely better.

Under review for x round at y journal, is also very good because it tells the adcom exactly where your paper is at.

Papers not related to your discipline... like not at all? For example, if you're in consumer behavior or micro ob and you have a psych paper under review, I would consider that related to your discipline...

If it's completely unrelated, then it's a weak positive signal... yes you know how publishing works, but in a different field with slightly different sets of rules, and norms.

Also consider the impact factor of the journal. If it's close to zero, then it's not going to be much of a signal, also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything evergreen said. It all depends on the degree to which the field is unrelated. If it has some chance of being somewhat related (i.e. you can make it related) it will be a benefit. If the paper is in a horrible journal in a completely unrelated field, I'd say it's probably best to just leave it off of your SOP. Include it in your CV, but no need to mention it anywhere else.

 

Under revision is a much better signal. That signals you're almost there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Does it matter when you turn your application in? Do schools typically begin reviewing the apps as soon as they are received or do they wait until after the application deadline? Is there any advantage to being the first or last to apply? I think I have seen this question answered on here before but I wanted to ask again in case anything has changed. I'm curious because I am planning on attending the DocNet event in Chicago in mid-November. I was going to wait to finalize my applications until after that event in case I learned anything that could help my application. Thanks in advance for the help. Good luck everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the school specifically states on their website that they do rolling admissions (this is where applications are reviewed as they come in, and it's not common at all), there is no benefit to being first, and a bit of risk to being last (what if you are late because you forget to submit on time as a result of waiting till the very last minute).

 

You should submit your application when you feel you have done everything you can on it and anticipate no major improvements before the deadline date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember seeing some interviews for schools on grad cafe before their deadlines. In general there is no need to be on the early side, but I would aim for a week or two before applications are actually due. That school's deadline was in mid-January. So it was a little later in the deadlines anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the others have said. Most schools do not begin reviewing until the deadline, but you should submit the applications whenever you are done with them. Sitting around tinkering with them is not going to make them any better, but waiting for the last minute can have a significant impact, if you forget something.

 

Two other quick points, I believe that the schools who interview before their deadlines probably had a prior connection with the students (i.e. they were waiting for the application to make it official, but they knew they were going to interview that person anyhow). The exception for this is the schools who have deadlines in February. Almost all schools will begin review in January before the semester gets going too hard. Second point, I think (meaning I'm not positive) the department doesn't see each individual application. The grad school (which is outside of the specific department) generally gets first crack at the applications. They have arbitrary cut-offs for things like GPA, GMAT etc... Only once you pass this threshold are you passed on to the department for review in a large batch, so there is no way to know who was first, last etc...

 

Continuing this point, even if the department gets all of the applications, they will use these arbitrary cutoffs to decide which applications to read. There isn't enough time to read all the applications, so the departments generally look for specific numbers or LOR writers who are known. This allows them to decrease the number of applications substantially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my conversations with several PhD students/PhD graduates/professors, I hear repeatedly that he/she got in through a direct recommendation from his/her professor to a professor at the target school, he/she had a direct discussion with his/her intended advisor at the target school through someone who connected them, or each person who got in to the program has some sort of ties to some faculty member in the school. My serious question is - do people who don't have such connections get in? Are some schools known to be more about such connections? Also, for people who don't have such connections, what can they do to up the chance to getting themselves on the radar screen (assuming the person is a strong candidate) to the relevant faculty members?

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my conversations with several PhD students/PhD graduates/professors, I hear repeatedly that he/she got in through a direct recommendation from his/her professor to a professor at the target school, he/she had a direct discussion with his/her intended advisor at the target school through someone who connected them, or each person who got in to the program has some sort of ties to some faculty member in the school. My serious question is - do people who don't have such connections get in? Are some schools known to be more about such connections? Also, for people who don't have such connections, what can they do to up the chance to getting themselves on the radar screen (assuming the person is a strong candidate) to the relevant faculty members?

 

So most people I know in programs didn't have a direct connection beforehand. In fact the few that did seem to be the minority at mid-level schools. I would hazard a guess that this connection happens more at top schools, but not for reasons you might expect. For example to get into a top program you generally need relevant research experience with known professors. Simply having this would increase the possibility that your LOR writer would know someone else at a top school. So rather than the top schools only accepting people who have connections, it's that the top schools only accept people with relevant research experience shown through working with faculty who work with professors at top schools, and the cycle continues.

 

But that is not everyone at the top schools. What you can do is to show research potential. Generally this is through previous research exp and LOR's. You also need to make sure that your SOP and research interest fit with the schools to which you are applying. This will go a long way in getting your application read. If you provide clear support for why you want to research with a specific professor, and you have background to support that, you'll do fine.

 

Here's the thing, don't beat yourself up over not having any connections. I didn't and I'm at a great program. Just make sure you apply widely and base your school choices on research, not name brand. Do that, and, assuming you're a strong candidate as you stated, you'll be fine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the others have said. Most schools do not begin reviewing until the deadline, but you should submit the applications whenever you are done with them. Sitting around tinkering with them is not going to make them any better, but waiting for the last minute can have a significant impact, if you forget something.

 

Two other quick points, I believe that the schools who interview before their deadlines probably had a prior connection with the students (i.e. they were waiting for the application to make it official, but they knew they were going to interview that person anyhow). The exception for this is the schools who have deadlines in February. Almost all schools will begin review in January before the semester gets going too hard. Second point, I think (meaning I'm not positive) the department doesn't see each individual application. The grad school (which is outside of the specific department) generally gets first crack at the applications. They have arbitrary cut-offs for things like GPA, GMAT etc... Only once you pass this threshold are you passed on to the department for review in a large batch, so there is no way to know who was first, last etc...

 

Continuing this point, even if the department gets all of the applications, they will use these arbitrary cutoffs to decide which applications to read. There isn't enough time to read all the applications, so the departments generally look for specific numbers or LOR writers who are known. This allows them to decrease the number of applications substantially.

You are probably right about prior connections. They matter a lot.

 

I am sure the review process varies by school. I know that another model is having assistant profs/senior phd students review a few packets each and pass along any that are worth looking into. The admissions committee then looks at the handful of applications that make this first cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my conversations with several PhD students/PhD graduates/professors, I hear repeatedly that he/she got in through a direct recommendation from his/her professor to a professor at the target school, he/she had a direct discussion with his/her intended advisor at the target school through someone who connected them, or each person who got in to the program has some sort of ties to some faculty member in the school. My serious question is - do people who don't have such connections get in? Are some schools known to be more about such connections? Also, for people who don't have such connections, what can they do to up the chance to getting themselves on the radar screen (assuming the person is a strong candidate) to the relevant faculty members?

 

Thanks!

 

I didn't have any connections to my program (top 5), and I'm under the impression that this is fairly common. It's certainly possible to be considered/admitted as a strong candidate without connections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't have any connections to my program (top 5), and I'm under the impression that this is fairly common. It's certainly possible to be considered/admitted as a strong candidate without connections.

 

I didn't have any connection with any professor in any US school at the time of application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me throw my opinion in here....

 

1. Having connections may be helpful in schools taking a look at your overall profile, particularly if the LOR writer is known to send good students before or if professors at the institution you are applying to have actually worked with you before, thus can speak towards your work ethic, etc. Simply being 'connected', i.e., "I have emailed you before" does not imply a 'connection'. It is better to go with your lack of connections and just play to your strengths, than to attempt to feign a connection in your app package, even though you have perhaps only exchanged two emails with the faculty member.

 

2. not having 'connections' is not necessarily bad... It means the adcom will look over you package for what it is... your test scores, your gpa, etc. Generally, initial cuts are made from these, where the faculty determine that you may meet the cutoff for what they deem acceptable. Then they look at each applicant more carefully to determine their rank... i.e., who is the top picks, etc.... If two applicants are on par with each other (i.e., very comparable), then if someone they know can 'vouch' for one individual, they may lean more towards ranking them higher on their short-list. So essentially, this may work for you if you are neck and neck with another applicant.

Edited by tm_associate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me throw my opinion in here....

 

1. Having connections may be helpful in schools taking a look at your overall profile, particularly if the LOR writer is known to send good students before or if professors at the institution you are applying to have actually worked with you before, thus can speak towards your work ethic, etc. Simply being 'connected', i.e., "I have emailed you before" does not imply a 'connection'. It is better to go with your lack of connections and just play to your strengths, than to attempt to feign a connection in your app package, even though you have perhaps only exchanged two emails with the faculty member.

 

2. not having 'connections' is not necessarily bad... It means the adcom will look over you package for what it is... your test scores, your gpa, etc. Generally, initial cuts are made from these, where the faculty determine that you may meet the cutoff for what they deem acceptable. Then they look at each applicant more carefully to determine their rank... i.e., who is the top picks, etc.... If two applicants are on par with each other (i.e., very comparable), then if someone they know can 'vouch' for one individual, they may lean more towards ranking them higher on their short-list. So essentially, this may work for you if you are neck and neck with another applicant.

As a rule I would say it reduces noise in the application process and that adcoms are risk averse, so it increases how much they value you.

Edited by tm_associate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers to my previous post! This forum has been incredibly helpful to me and I really appreciate all the feedback.

 

I do have another question though.

 

Has anyone attended the DocNet recruiting events before and can share their experience? I am planning to attend the Chicago event in November. I have seen posts on here before about these events but I am just curious what you all have to say.

 

Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Thanks for the answers to my previous post! This forum has been incredibly helpful to me and I really appreciate all the feedback.

 

I do have another question though.

 

Has anyone attended the DocNet recruiting events before and can share their experience? I am planning to attend the Chicago event in November. I have seen posts on here before about these events but I am just curious what you all have to say.

 

Thanks again!

 

 

I know a lot of people who have gone to these. They seem to be helpful in that they can get you in front of some adcoms. More importantly it gives you a chance to check out what programs are accepting applicants and make some decisions about where you want to apply. Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the work in progress?

I have a couple of projects that I am working on. One of them I might have something to write about, the another one just collecting data.

 

Should I mention these in my CV?

 

Thanks!

 

Yes, definitely.

If you have research projects in the works, you should definitely mention them on your cv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Are the first 2 years harder than the next 3-4 years doing research and preparing your dissertation?

Some people suggest that the first 2 years are more like a Graduate Program completing exams and classes and the rest is kind of preparing your dissertation and research which is much harder. I was just curios about your experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the first two years are much easier than the last 3. In the first 2 years, you have some semblance of a schedule and direction in your life. You take courses, you read assigned papers, you write your term papers. You have a couple of research projects which you have started recently. You also have your comps at the end of 2 years and that is a big goal for you. But, things suddenly change after comps. You are on your own and you have to find your own direction. There is no schedule. So, you procrastinate. A lot of intrinsic motivation is needed at this stage to carry on with your PhD. In fact, although my N (no. of observations) is relatively small, I have seen more people feeling lost and demotivated midway through the 3rd year.

 

 

Are the first 2 years harder than the next 3-4 years doing research and preparing your dissertation?

Some people suggest that the first 2 years are more like a Graduate Program completing exams and classes and the rest is kind of preparing your dissertation and research which is much harder. I was just curios about your experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midway through the third year right now. I actually am taking 3 classes, teaching, doing RA work, and trying to get a third year paper together while hoping to advance other projects. So I have plenty of things I need to do from day to day. I feel much more pressure to produce good research though, and this is a very difficult thing to do. It is definitely easier to concentrate on the other things that I mentioned. So far it seems like the latter years are difficult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your posts, sb29 and YaSvoboden!. It seems that would be the general consensus :) I was just very curious to know what you guys thought but that answers my questions :D

Btw, is it bad over here to ask which universities you guys currently go to? I've seen that nobody refers that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the first 2 years harder than the next 3-4 years doing research and preparing your dissertation?

Some people suggest that the first 2 years are more like a Graduate Program completing exams and classes and the rest is kind of preparing your dissertation and research which is much harder. I was just curios about your experiences.

 

I'm only a second year, but everything that I've heard from everyone is in agreeance with what the others have said here i.e. that the last 3 (or 4) years are significantly more difficult. The biggest reason for this is self-motivation. You really have to be good at scheduling and actually getting work done. Add to the fact that during your first two years you have a bit of a respite from research. Sure you might have a project or two going on, but no one expects that much from you. On the other hand, during your last 3 years, a lot is expected from you, if not from your faculty, from yourself. You'll need to get some work out so that you can find a job at the end. This can definitely lead to demotivation, particularly if your adviser is kind of hands off. From what I hear, the third year is the most demotivating. You're right in the middle, you no longer have classes (at least not as high of a load), but you also aren't prepping for the market or your dissertation. It's all about what your motivation level is.

 

That being said, every year is hard. There is always too much work and not enough time. There are pressures to pass comps, then there are pressures to pass your proposal, then there are pressures to get a job. There is always pressure to publish and there is the constant nagging feeling that you just aren't enough, just aren't smart enough or good enough or creative enough. It's always there. It's hard because the idea that you aren't smart enough has probably never crossed your mind. All of us, all of us, have been some of the smartest students in all of our classes throughout school. There is nothing more humbling than a PhD program.

 

One final thought, of all the people I know who have scrubbed out, they all did it before their third year. I'm not trying to argue that the first two years are harder, but merely noting that you know pretty quickly if the program is for you or not. Generally once you pass your comps, while the program gets much harder, you also see an end in sight.

 

One more final thought, I've seen a lot of people get demotivated throughout the program. While there will be bad days, days where you just don't think you can make it, it's only really a problem when these feelings become chronic and won't go away. My advice on one way to deal with the stress is to celebrate every win. Absolutely every win. Did you take a midterm? Have a beer! Did you get an OK from the IRB? Watch a movie with some friends. Is it Friday and you made it through another week? Order a pizza. In life, it's really easy to lose sight of the good things because bad things are more salient (thanks Tversky). Counterbalance that by celebrating the wins. Sometimes just taking a night off counts as a win, sometimes doing it up on the town is what you need. No matter how you celebrate, make sure to celebrate, or you'll get crushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your posts, sb29 and YaSvoboden!. It seems that would be the general consensus :) I was just very curious to know what you guys thought but that answers my questions :D

Btw, is it bad over here to ask which universities you guys currently go to? I've seen that nobody refers that.

 

 

There is a certain modicum of anonymity throughout this forum. Some people have no issue saying where they are at, others prefer to keep it anonymous because of future job prospects. A lot of us have at one point or another said, so if you check through old posts you might be able to figure it out. So while it's not bad to ask, don't be offended if we choose to not respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...