gretta19

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say I think it depends a lot on the structure of your program. Second year was impossibly difficult for me. There are honestly big chunks of time during first semester of my second year that I don't remember. I was teaching for the first time as the sole instructor for a junior level course and taking 4 courses myself, all while trying to push forward research and to develop a new topic for my comps paper. It was awful. I remember talking to more senior students and faculty back then, and the students said that second year was a piece of cake and the pressure didn't really heat up until the (name the year they were in at that point). Junior faculty tended to look back on their time in their respective Ph.D. programs as the most free they ever were, with nothing but time to work on their research. I remember being terrified that if it was going to get worse than it was, I wasn't going to make it. I'm in my fourth year now, and it's stressful, but not the same kind of stress. I worry about actually getting things done but much less about my ability to get things done, if that makes sense. Obviously the looming job market is stressful, waiting on reviews is stressful, fleshing out a dissertation is stressful, but none of it is quite as bad as that semester of my second year.

As someone who bought a plane ticket to attend one...no. Not worth it. If it's close and convenient, definitely go. But it just isn't worth the expense. If you want to buy a plane ticket and meet people, fly to SJDM or SCP or something like that. You'll have access to more people for networking and you'll get to hear about research.

Absolutely. My prescription hadn't changed in 4 years before I started. I've had to buy new glasses every year since. Warby Parker was a lifesaver until my husband switched jobs and I received vision coverage (vision isn't covered by university insurance).

And this is why my former cohortmate would print all of the papers for seminar 10 minutes before class, fold at the staples, and then spill coffee or food on the first page of each before heading to class. It's also why I said former cohortmate.

This is really important. I'm going to agree with a lot of what has been said here but possible offer a different perspective. I'm a female PhD student and was married between submitting applications and flying out to interviews. I was advised to not wear a ring or bring up the fact that I was married at my interviews. I largely followed that advice. When it came up naturally during two interviews I didn't lie about it but I certainly didn't bring it up on my own. As far as a spouse (or, I would assume, kids) being perceived as a negative thing, I think there's a huge difference based on sex. Like most in this thread, there is no doubt in my mind that I perform better in my program because I have my husband as support. I honestly don't think I could do this without him. That said, the way that others interpret the dynamics and expectations of your relationship are VERY different when you're someone's wife than when you're someone's husband. I truly do not think that people are malicious or even conscious of it but there have been numerous instances where people with a lot of influence on my career have made assumptions about me and my marriage that are potentially damaging that I can't imagine them making about my married, male classmates. I've had professors assume that I was preparing to ask them a question about whether or not to have kids in grad school during a seminar (I was preparing to ask a question specific to a quant paper that had nothing to do with marriage or children), had faculty make comments along the lines of me not really needing funding for an extra year because if I need the extra time, I can just live on my husband's salary, had people talk about how my high FCQs are going to come in handy if I decide to "mommy track," and all of this in conversations that had NOTHING to do with my marriage or (nonexistent) kids. TL;DR: Don't lie. Also don't be naïve. People will make assumptions about your goals and priorities based on what they know of your personal life, whether they mean to or not, and those assumptions can hurt you.

I've been following this discussion and thought I'd chime in with my experience. I'm in my third year, so done with coursework now. My personal opinion is that you want to impress and earn good grades in classes that matter. Classes matter if they are (1) highly relevant to the kind of work that you want to do or (2) taught by someone you want to work with long term. In my experience this is particularly true when you're still in "first impression" stage - certainly first semester, maybe first year. Hopefully after that you have some kind of cushion built up so that no one questions your ability because you got an A-. That said, it's worth your time to figure out individuals prof's expectations. I have been told everything from "Classes don't matter. You should aim to scrape your knees on the bare minimum in class and focus on research." to "My expectation is that you get an A in every class. If you don't get an A, it will be discussed. Don't let it hamper your research productivity, either." Know who you're working with and what they expect. I think the earlier points about the necessity of tradeoffs once you begin your PhD that were raised earlier are really important. It's hard to accept at first because so many of us are coming from undergrad (or masters) where you could excel at everything if you worked hard enough. That doesn't work anymore. Your research will never be done, will never move fast enough, will never be without challenges. You will never be done with your work and there just is not enough time to do everything to the best of you ability. I learned this after really struggling with feeling like I wasn't doing enough my first semester. Ever since I create a list of my priorities each semester. It helps me keep focused and allocate my time during those days/weeks/months where SOMETHING has to suffer. It can be hard to get perspective when you're in the thick of it and the list of priorities stating: Project V is closest to publication, so it is first priority. Class W is relevant and taught by someone I want to work with, so it comes next. Project X must be ready for submission to a conference by mid-semester. Project Y is in an earlier stage and so long as I get two studies run this semester, I can stay on track once summer hits. Class Z is not relevant to my work and I don't expect to work with the prof, so it is low priority.... is a really nice way to maintain focus.

I agree with others' suggestion that you buckle down and improve that GRE. It's a pain to study and take it while you're working but it will be worth it. As far as your research interests, I'm (admittedly biased) and a little bit more supportive. Check out the work coming out of Colorado re: consumer financial decision making Current Projects | Leeds School of Business | University of Colorado Boulder. Scan recent CFDM conference programs for other reading/potential programs that offer a good fit: Boulder Summer Conference on Consumer Financial Decision Making | Leeds School of Business | University of Colorado Boulder .

The advice that you've received in this thread is spot on. Drop the matrix, try to talk to a marketing professor doing CB research and ask them for advice/direction. As far as a good journal to start off with, you can try Journal of Consumer Research. The new(ish) research curations might be a good resource as you try to get an idea of some of the areas within CB. I also have to say that as much as I feel like I should be offended by this comparison (a la parents hating when you compare raising a puppy with raising a toddler): I am not in the slightest. The area, methods, and content of your research are hugely personal decisions and IMHO trying to find the "right" answer without a certain degree of introspection is a recipe for burnout. By all means consider external factors and seek advice. Just don't skip the "I love this so much I'd like to spend my life thinking about it" step.

I won't add to the chorus of "it depends" - which is true - but I will say that it's not the actual hours you get to count as working that will have the largest impact. I was working at least as many hours at the office before I started my PhD program as I am now. What is different is that you are never "off." Which means two things: There's always more you could and should be doing. You will literally never have another completed to do list. Ever. You will hit milestones that will be exciting and rewarding but all of the work you said could wait will be doing just that. Waiting for you. No ones is going to make you do it either. You will have to make yourself do it. You will have a difficult time turning your nerd brain off even when that's what your friends and family need you to do. No one wants to know why that Super Bowl commercial was a great example of a theory you're developing. Sometimes you just need to shut the hell up and enjoy Thanksgiving dinner instead of telling everyone about a relevant research finding (thank you, Brian Wansink, for ruining food... All of which is to say, do it if your wife is on board. It's the best. Just know that it's a horrifically selfish decision and I can't imagine doing it with a less than fully supportive husband.

I know Jon Haidt is at Stern doing ethical systems work now. No idea if he is taking students. Might be worth looking into.

I wasn't aware UTD provided rankings of scholars in addition to schools. If it removes the filtering by journal step, it's still a timesaver 9/10.

DocSig now provides research productivity rankings by author and school for marketing: Research Productivity | DocSIG

I find that when things are going less than ideal if I think back to when I was applying and how desperately I wanted this, it puts it all back into perspective. Similarly, when I'm tired of being a poor student I think back to when I made money but found my job boring and unfulfilling. Imposter syndrome was also an issue for me, particularly in my first year. I always found it incredibly reassuring to have faculty I have tremendous respect for tell me that they had the same experience. Most of us that decide to do this are used to being the smartest (or one of the smartest) people in any given group; prepare yourself to not feel like that ever again. Everyone is smart. You get to pick a small area or possibly a subset of topics to be an expert on. Even then it will take you a couple of years to really be an expert compared to older students and faculty that simply know more than you do. There's no getting around it and it makes you feel like you're way out of your league. Also beer. & whiskey/bourbon.

I made time. I'm a lifelong Broncos fan and currently live in Boulder so it seemed worth wasting 5 hours. If football with friends and family is your destresser, you can definitely make it work for 4 hours each week. There might be those occasional weeks where you'll have to miss the game or do some mindless work while you watch, but we all need 4 hours of downtime per week.

Second year here too. This is the first semester I've taken less than 3 classes and it's amazing. Last semester almost killed me, with 3 courses (JDM, methods, and theoretical modeling) and teaching for the first time. This semester is all about catching up on research and prepping for my comps paper that's due in August. As much as people say that industry experience doesn't matter, I think it helps quite a bit that first year. A PhD program is hard and knowing what it's actually like to work in industry is a good reference to have when you're stuck in your office feeling like an imposter at 2 in the morning. I, too, have never thought "maybe this was a bad idea" but I'd be lying if I said I didn't occasionally check in with myself - "Hey, self, you still sure that you want to do this?" - only to then remember what it felt like to work in industry. I had a good job and all, I just wanted the freedom to choose which problems I get to obsess over. Students who've never worked in industry and don't have that baseline seem to think if they left they'd automatically make $200k working 9-5 with weekends off. A tempting offer when you're at your weakest.