(Untitled)

Jul 15, 2008 22:11

Okay, I'm known for over planning things, which is why I'm posting this now ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

brittdreams July 16 2008, 12:53:02 UTC
1) Get a study book. Check the Princeton Review, Barron's, and Kaplan books out of the library.
2) Take it when you feel prepared but no later than Nov 09.
3) depends on what your field is. Are you planning to go to grad school for social psych or something else? In my discipline (a social science), everyone does a MA/MS before doing a PhD. Most programs have it as a rule, otherwise it's an unwritten rule in the discipline.
4) That it's going to be a lot of work. That it is difficult/time-consuming to apply for schools while writing a thesis. That you need to write a solid thesis to demonstrate your ability to do research. That no matter how well you do on the GREs and how high your GPA is, the whole process is a crapshoot. That you shouldn't do a PhD unless it absolutely fits in with your career goals and, without it, you couldn't have the career you wanted. That grad school is way different than undergrad and will test you in ways you haven't imagined. Oh yeah, and that applying is quite expensive (estimate $100 per school).
5) Write a good thesis. Make sure those recommendations will be good. Be a research assistant if you can. Get some college teaching/tutoring experience if you can. Have the strongest, most focused personal statement that you imagine. Do really good research on departments and faculty because that's what matters most.

Reply

kandi_panties July 16 2008, 12:56:05 UTC
My field will be forensic psychology. I will most likely have to do either a clinical or experimental psychology based PhD with a Forensic emphasis though.

Reply

brittdreams July 16 2008, 13:05:04 UTC
You didn't address the other issue. Why do you want a PhD in forensic psychology? What do you plan to do with it? Most professors advise that if you can achieve your career goals without doing a PhD, you should skip the degree.

Reply

kandi_panties July 16 2008, 13:13:47 UTC
I plan on doing research, mainly, as well as having my own side practice. I'll need the PhD for both. I figure as I get older I'll be able to retire my own practice and teach college.

Reply

brittdreams July 16 2008, 13:15:58 UTC
It's nice that you think that's how the world works. Faculty jobs are highly competitive so I wouldn't count on being able to retire and teach, unless you plan on being an adjunct with no benefits. Good luck to you!

Reply

kandi_panties July 16 2008, 13:20:22 UTC
Wow... snarky much?

It's actually very doable and I've seen many professors that I work with do so. Moving from a private practice to teaching at the college level is done actually quite often. Yes, while operating the private practice it is conducive to start as an adjunct, but it is possible to go from private practice into "retirement" as a full on faculty professor, given the right credentials. In fact, we just hired someone in those exact shoes.

In summation, it's sad that you don't realize that the world can certainly work this way.

Reply

brittdreams July 16 2008, 13:37:38 UTC
I get my info my faculty members and my mother's colleagues who tried to do something similar. But, given the changes the academy is undergoing, I think using academia in retirement is on its way out. But you don't have to believe me.

Reply

anese July 16 2008, 14:29:03 UTC
It may sound snarky, but this is the reality of academia. What you are proposing is possible, but is it probable? Might be a good idea to lurk through some places like www.chronicle.com and read what professors have to say about these sorts of things.

My father has been invited to do the same multiple times (different field) so it does happen, but as a 100% possibility shouldn't be counted on.

However--doesn't mean it couldn't happen--I mean, what are we talking about, 40, 50 years from now? Probably would be adjuncting, but you never know.

Ha- I guess what I'm saying is, brittdreams is not too far from the truth, but you shouldn't let that be the end of your pursuit of the PhD. (But I'm sure you have already decided this )

Reply

kandi_panties July 16 2008, 14:34:19 UTC
Very true, but it's yet another reason to have the PhD (besides the fact that I need it to do the things I wish to do). Anyway, the idea of retiring from the field does kind of imply that an adjunct position would be more than enough as I wouldn't be teaching for the money or benefits (or it wouldn't be retiring).

Reply

anese July 16 2008, 16:48:58 UTC
My father has always commented on the job security of a PhD--I don't know how true that is given our difference in fields...but I do think there is some element of truth in this.

One thing I should add, I think what has really made him an attractive candidate for a transition has been: (1) consistent contact with former graduate students who are now either Presidents at institutions he attended or are prominent members of boards etc... (2) over 30 years of research work in his field outside of academia and stellar work experience (3) credentials that few others within the field would have, making him attractive from a cross-disciplinary standpoint, to teach for example, graduate level courses in business and say, physical chemistry. He also regularly presents research papers in his retirement and attends conferences.

I don't know if your average retiree has that kind of a background or does this on a regular basis "just for kicks" but it basically gives him the pedigree of someone who has worked in the academic world for a very long time. (Excluding practical teaching experience)

Reply

gangur July 16 2008, 15:09:18 UTC
Like others have said, this just isn't the case anymore. PhD programs nowadays are so research focused and the end goal for many is to continue researching.

And, at least at my university and others like it, going to a "college" - not a research university - is viewed as "failure." (I'm not saying that's right, but this seems to be the case...) Similarly, in my PhD program, people that didn't come from a R1 (research-based university) are accepted at a much lower rate than grads from R1s. This is perhaps due in part to profs at non-R1 universities not having a lot of weight associated with their names.

Reply

kandi_panties July 16 2008, 15:11:28 UTC
That's interesting to note. I know my current University is anything but top notch in any field, though it is run mostly on research. How would you go about finding out what your university is viewed as?

Research is my love and is what I plan on doing anyway, which is why the PhD is so important.

Reply

gangur July 16 2008, 15:19:19 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_1 - list of R1s is in those links somewhere.

If you LOOOOOOVE research, R1 is the route to go. Small college profs may be conducting research, but at an R1 we live and die by it. (To the point that instruction is often a secondary concern, undergrads are merely around for us to use for research studies... I exaggerate, but not by much.)

If you want to do a PhD at an R1, you might want to consider doing a summer program at an R1 to demonstrate your skillz. Similarly, having letters of recs from KNOWN professors actually does matter.

Reply

anese July 16 2008, 15:22:05 UTC
wow that is really useful! I too was looking for a list of R1 institutions.

Reply

anese July 16 2008, 15:27:50 UTC
and ah I am a bit bummed that there is no real "list" there haha I'm too lazy at my current research job to sift through and compare, but I'm pretty confident my UG was a R1. I just wanted to see it in writing.

Reply

kandi_panties July 16 2008, 17:22:11 UTC
Okay I don't get it. I can't tell where they define Universities that are R1s. I'm 99% sure my current U isn't, but I'm lost.

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/sub.asp?key=748&subkey=13262&start=782

Reply


Leave a comment

Up