Process of choosing applicants to interview

[amy203]

I thought it might be helpful to start a thread on the process schools go through when choosing which applicants to interview. I know it really helped me to consider what hurdles I had to get past before actually meeting the prof I wanted to work with.

A friend of mine works at one of the schools I am applying to - I'd rather not give the name. It is very research oriented, is usually ranked in the top 5 to 10 for clinical programs by US News (not that rankings are all that important), and receives around 300 applications per year. Anyway, they go through the following process:

1) Screen out people with very low GPA/GRE scores. My friend didn't know the exact cut-offs (the school claims not to have one), but thinks that the scores have to be pretty low.

2) Grad students skim through the personal statements and toss applicants that would be a poor match - doesn't matter how good their stats are or how many years of research experience. You could be published in Nature, but if you say you want to study Autism and no one who studies Autism is taking students, you're out. Also, if you write that your ultimate goal is to become a clinician, you're out.

3) Grad students reread the remaining personal statements and score them from 1-4 (based on experiences, writing ability, and fit with the program). Apps with a score of 3 or 4 get sent to the applicant's POI.

4) After this point, it varies by professor. They make decisions on who to interview (sometimes with input from their grad students, but not always).

I'm sure the process varies a lot from school to school, and also by type of program. This one is very "in house" - I've heard others decide by committee or are more reliant on graduate admissions to complete early screening.

I'm sure other people can share different methods...

 

[WaitingKills]

Wow, that surprises me that grad students have such a huge role.

I though most of the weeding out would be done by faculty themselves.

 

[perfektspace]

Thanks for posting that.

They do all the lab grunt work so it makes sense they would do the interview screening grunt work too. I'm guessing the more applicants there are the more involved people outside of the faculty are involved in managing the process.

 

[psycholytic]

Thanks for posting that.

They do all the lab grunt work so it makes sense they would do the interview screening grunt work too. I'm guessing the more applicants there are the more involved people outside of the faculty are involved in managing the process.

I agree, makes sense.

 

[psycholytic]

I thought it might be helpful to start a thread on the process schools go through when choosing which applicants to interview. I know it really helped me to consider what hurdles I had to get past before actually meeting the prof I wanted to work with.

A friend of mine works at one of the schools I am applying to - I'd rather not give the name. It is very research oriented, is usually ranked in the top 5 to 10 for clinical programs by US News (not that rankings are all that important), and receives around 300 applications per year. Anyway, they go through the following process:

1) Screen out people with very low GPA/GRE scores. My friend didn't know the exact cut-offs (the school claims not to have one), but thinks that the scores have to be pretty low.

2) Grad students skim through the personal statements and toss applicants that would be a poor match - doesn't matter how good their stats are or how many years of research experience. You could be published in Nature, but if you say you want to study Autism and no one who studies Autism is taking students, you're out. Also, if you write that your ultimate goal is to become a clinician, you're out.

3) Grad students reread the remaining personal statements and score them from 1-4 (based on experiences, writing ability, and fit with the program). Apps with a score of 3 or 4 get sent to the applicant's POI.

4) After this point, it varies by professor. They make decisions on who to interview (sometimes with input from their grad students, but not always).

I'm sure the process varies a lot from school to school, and also by type of program. This one is very "in house" - I've heard others decide by committee or are more reliant on graduate admissions to complete early screening.

I'm sure other people can share different methods...

Good post amy.

Gives a good overview of the process and hints about mentioning the great research assistance team, not only the profs, in your application , lol

 

[clinpsychgirl]

The way things are done at my school differs. For point of reference, I also go to a top ranked research oriented clinical program- and here's how it goes:

Basically, after applications are weeded out by administrative people based on grades, GREs, and appropriate research experience, those applications making the first cut are sent to the specific professors and they sift through the applications personally and hand-pick the best matches. Professors are picking among many qualified candidates for just a couple of interviews- so those who usually get the interviews are those who have some sort of specific skill that the lab could benefit from (e.g., trained in assessment tools the lab uses).

During our interviews, graduate students and professors individually interview the students. Graduate students get to fill out a basic form indicating how the interview went but their role/say doesn't extend beyond that.

 

[psychanon]

At my school (I'm not saying which, but somewhere in the top 20), it's totally different. Professors all do there own thing, sifting through applications that list them as their "POI" (btw, I think it's funny how use of that acronym has spread on this board). How they decide whom to interview is totally up to them. Some, like my adviser, show applications to students for feedback, others don't. There's no formal "ad com" meeting.

 

[amy203]

I have no idea how common graduate student involvement is, although I think it makes a lot of sense. I would guess most profs don't have time to go through every application, and grad students might have a better understanding of their advisors wants and needs as opposed to, say, a graduate secretary.

I'm hoping people will keep posting about other programs (thanks, clinpsychgirl and psychanon!)

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

A friend of mine worked at a clinical PhD program, and he gave me a run down back when I was applying (this info is 3-4 years old, so YMMV)

1. The admin staff handles the very initial stuff (verifying everything is in), and cuts everything that is incomplete or doesn't meet a minimum GPA and GRE.

2.The apps are distributed to faculty for a 1st read. They get sorted and cuts are made.

3. Spec. faculty are given their apps, then they sort through and select who they want to interview.

4. Interview (group w/random prof, individual with POI, and current grad student interview)

5. Offer.

-t

 

[Lyn71785]

I know this sounds crazy but I know someone who works in a psych department and their first step in screening applications is to make three piles: minorities, men, and white females.

 

[Quynh2007]

what if you were a minority male?

 

[psycholytic]

I know this sounds crazy but I know someone who works in a psych department and their first step in screening applications is to make three piles: minorities, men, and white females.

Due to psychology being a "female" occupied field; are they throwing category three out immediately?

Boy, not good for me.

 

[amy203]

I know this sounds crazy but I know someone who works in a psych department and their first step in screening applications is to make three piles: minorities, men, and white females.

I would guess this means that the screening is a little less strict for minorities and men - so even if they have a low GPA/GRE scores, their applications are still given a closer look. It's not like being a white female hurts you.

 

[Psychxiety]

Yeah...one school I'm interviewing at is REALLY into promoting minority candidates. I got this long email on this "minority social event" they are having. I'm thinking uhoh (white middle class female here). They claim that ethnic, sexual preference & religious minorities are all welcome at the event... what really irks me is that I'm "not religious" and have been discriminated against on that basis many times in my life- yet if I went to this dinner I would get nasty looks no doubt. I know it's not PC for me to say it -but affirmative action sucks! (for us white girls anyway)

Its really imtimidating how much infasis they put on diversity- it makes me wonder if I really even have a shot.

Sorry about that off topic rant.

On topic- at my uni grad students are definitely intensively involved in choosing candidates. I've seen them sifting through the PSs & heard them discussing them. Don't just focus on your POI at interviews…its critical to impress grad students too- or at least to come off as likeable.

 

[paramour]

. . . It's not like being a white female hurts you.

Except for the fact that you may be held to higher standards than the males/minorities.

 

[paramour]

Yeah...one school I'm interviewing at is REALLY into promoting minority candidates. I got this long email on this "minority social event" they are having. I'm thinking uhoh (white middle class female here). They claim that ethnic, sexual preference & religious minorities are all welcom at the event... what really irks me is that I'm "not religious" and have been discriminated against on that basis many times in my life- yet if I went to this dinner I would get nasty looks no doubt. I know it's not PC for me to say it -but affirmative action sucks! (for us white girls anyway)

Hmm, there's a thought--I never once stopped to think that I could claim myself as a religious minority (another "nonreligious" individual here). I wonder how well that would go over when you ask for the "underrepresented" applicant consideration.

 

[Psychxiety]

Hmm, there's a thought--I never once stopped to think that I could claim myself as a religious minority (another "nonreligious" individual here). I wonder how well that would go over when you ask for the "underrepresented" applicant consideration.

LOL- yeah prob not going to test that one.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

If you want to be a really noticeable minority....declare yourself republican in class or in front of faculty.

-t

 

[psycholytic]

Hmm, there's a thought--I never once stopped to think that I could claim myself as a religious minority (another "nonreligious" individual here). I wonder how well that would go over when you ask for the "underrepresented" applicant consideration.

Boah, I thought you guys did not exist in the US

Don't other's call you Marxist?

 

[paramour]

Boah, I thought you guys disd not exist in the US

We have natural camouflaging tendencies And they must work wonders when you're in the bible belt, else ye be lynched.

 

[Psychxiety]

We have natural camouflaging tendencies And they must work wonders when you're in the bible belt, else ye be lynched.

Hence why I said "not religious" as opposed to atheist- In the bible belt its considered a dirty word. You learn the euphemisms.

 

[Famousams]

Yay other "non-religous" people! I always get excited to find you guys!! Although we are much more abundant in these science tracks. But to the minority thing. I had an interview on Fri and there are 7 of us vying for the one spot in a lab. Two males and there are no males currently in that lab. So of course i really really think they are going to take a male candidate. I mean they obviously wouldnt have made it to the interview if they didnt match and were qualified. So using their maleness as a plus i think that one of them is in. It is so frustrating and i just wish you could apply and not indicate sex or ethnicity. Go on credentials and your statement thats it. Sorry for my rant!!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I doubt highly their 'maleness' will be a deciding factor. I use to work at a firm that had 1 woman in the entire company. It was a boutique tech firm (~20 ppl at the time), and the kind of work we did drew from an applicant pool that was 95%+ male. I went back there recently (6+ years later) and they are probably 60/40% if not closer. It was about finding the best applicant for the position. Over the years their focus changed, and they attracted a much more balanced applicant pool, which balanced out the ratio in the firm.

I wouldn't worry too much about not being a male. I mean, we are great and all ( ).....but I don't think it matters.

-t

 

[psycholytic]

We have natural camouflaging tendencies And they must work wonders when you're in the bible belt, else ye be lynched.

I wish people like you would speak up more, to show the world that America is not only about white, right-wing wackos, who love guns and use religion for everything, they don't want to take responsibility for.

 

[psycholytic]

Yay other "non-religous" people! I always get excited to find you guys!! Although we are much more abundant in these science tracks. But to the minority thing. I had an interview on Fri and there are 7 of us vying for the one spot in a lab. Two males and there are no males currently in that lab. So of course i really really think they are going to take a male candidate. I mean they obviously wouldnt have made it to the interview if they didnt match and were qualified. So using their maleness as a plus i think that one of them is in. It is so frustrating and i just wish you could apply and not indicate sex or ethnicity. Go on credentials and your statement thats it. Sorry for my rant!!

Me too

Nice to meet you, lol.

See message to paramour; same to you

 

[psycholytic]

Hence why I said "not religious" as opposed to atheist- In the bible belt its considered a dirty word. You learn the euphemisms.

Sometimes people should use "dirty" words deliberately in order to make a statement !

 

[DrPsyche]

I know it's not PC for me to say it -but affirmative action sucks! (for us white girls anyway)

Its really imtimidating how much infasis they put on diversity- it makes me wonder if I really even have a shot.

Sorry about that off topic rant.

I took a law class a few semesters ago and was surprised to find out that white women were the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action...which when you think about it, is quite obvious given the gender (not necessarily ethnic) switch in the psych field from majority white men to white women far outnumbering men in phd enrollment. Furthermore, ethnic minority psychologists comprise less than 6% of all psychologists. So I say to AA

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I wish people like you would speak up more, to show the world that America is not only about white, right-wing wackos, who love guns and use religion for everything, they don't want to take responsibility for.

As a white, right-leaning conservative, who likes guns...I am offended! I wish people kept their religion out of their politics.....they are each equally thorny without the inclusion of the other!

-t

 

[perfektspace]

I thought this was interesting. Take a look at this blurb from a clinical program:

The University of ****** is committed to providing programs and activities to all persons, regardless of race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, marital or parental status, age, or veteran status. The program participates in an affirmative action program to encourage minority student application, admission, and successful completion of the program. Contact the program director for more information.

Wait a minute, I thought they didn't care about: race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, marital or parental status, age, or veteran status? Does anyone see sentence one as being highly contradictory to sentence two. Worded cleverly enough but it is what it is.

 

[Quynh2007]

well, they said they were committed to diversity. doesn't mean that they were blind (in terms of admission).

 

[psychanon]

I don't mind AA for minorities in psychology, because the number of minorities in the field is disgustingly low, and that's got to be a problem for the field, particularly as psychology is so intermeshed with cultural attitudes. I do mind AA for guys, a lot. Sure, guys are underrepresented in psychology graduate programs, but look at faculty rosters-- men are far from underrepresented there, at the top of the field! Men have implicit advantages in almost every career area-- it's just not fair to give them an advantage in one area that women have begun to dominate. Besides, I suspect that minorities don't pursue Ph.D.s in psychology as much because of systematic barriers (lower access to quality education, etc.), while men aren't going into psychology because they don't want to (probably because they're going into business or engineering or other money making areas).

OK, rant over.

 

[zbombvt]

I don't mind AA for minorities in psychology, because the number of minorities in the field is disgustingly low, and that's got to be a problem for the field, particularly as psychology is so intermeshed with cultural attitudes. I do mind AA for guys, a lot. Sure, guys are underrepresented in psychology graduate programs, but look at faculty rosters-- men are far from underrepresented there, at the top of the field! Men have implicit advantages in almost every career area-- it's just not fair to give them an advantage in one area that women have begun to dominate. Besides, I suspect that minorities don't pursue Ph.D.s in psychology as much because of systematic barriers (lower access to quality education, etc.), while men aren't going into psychology because they don't want to (probably because they're going into business or engineering or other money making areas).

OK, rant over.

I'll hide my gender to avoid having biases read into what I write. But I thought it was important to note that while there are certainly a fair number of males in clinical faculty positions across the nation, we are speaking about the future of the field of clinical psychology. If males aren’t recognized as a minority they will be eliminated from the field as a new generation takes over. I think it’s very dangerous to lose that vantage point. As it stands now, with so few men applying I think its crucial to harness their passions.

Also, the belief that men are not going into psychology because they want to go into making money in other areas seems very closed minded to me. I’ve met many males over interviews/through work/etc. who are just as passionate about practicing psychology as the females I have met, all of whom are not driven by greed.

There is a reason why men aren’t going into the field of clinical psychology, perhaps it is because they are going into psychiatry? I don’t know the exact reasons, and I’d love to investigate why the numbers have dwindled so dramatically over the past thirty years.

 

[GAClinPsych]

I'll hide my gender to avoid having biases read into what I write. But I thought it was important to note that while there are certainly a fair number of males in clinical faculty positions across the nation, we are speaking about the future of the field of clinical psychology. If males aren’t recognized as a minority they will be eliminated from the field as a new generation takes over. I think it’s very dangerous to lose that vantage point. As it stands now, with so few men applying I think its crucial to harness their passions.

Also, the belief that men are not going into psychology because they want to go into making money in other areas seems very closed minded to me. I’ve met many males over interviews/through work/etc. who are just as passionate about practicing psychology as the females I have met, all of whom are not driven by greed.

There is a reason why men aren’t going into the field of clinical psychology, perhaps it is because they are going into psychiatry? I don’t know the exact reasons, and I’d love to investigate why the numbers have dwindled so dramatically over the past thirty years.

I think you make good points about the need for both perspectives (male and female - we are socialized differently) in psychology. My personal (feminist) hypothesis is that there are two biases that have led to the increase in the disparity in gender: 1) that psychology is often still considered a "soft" science, and thus more available to women (those silly girls can't do math, you know) and 2) that clinical psychology is a "healing" profession and thus more socially acceptable for women. What I mean is that as higher education has become (over the last few decades) more open to women, that psychology is one of the advanced degrees that is more open/available/acceptable for women. So I don't think that it's a dearth of men applying as much as it is there is a significant increase in the number of women applying. Just my two cents

 

[psychanon]

I'll hide my gender to avoid having biases read into what I write. But I thought it was important to note that while there are certainly a fair number of males in clinical faculty positions across the nation, we are speaking about the future of the field of clinical psychology. If males aren’t recognized as a minority they will be eliminated from the field as a new generation takes over. I think it’s very dangerous to lose that vantage point. As it stands now, with so few men applying I think its crucial to harness their passions.

What you generally see in female dominated fields is that the few men who go into them tend to get promoted faster and end up dominating the highest ranks. You see this in education (mostly women teachers, mostly male principals), librarians (mostly women, but library administrators are mostly men) and nursing (men tend to get promoted faster). Most of this information is coming from an Econ & Gender class I took in college about 6 years ago, so forgive me is this is out-of-date, but I can only assume that the trend has continued. Note that this takes place without the explicit advantage of AA for men. One hypothesized mechanism is that people are more likely to view men who enter male dominated fields as being more dedicated and more passionate because they are willing to enter the field despite the gendered stereotypes (e.g., a man who becomes a nurse despite the girlie stereotypes must be really dedicated, right?). I'm not sure if there's empirical support for that hypothesis (it'd be an interesting social psych question), but it makes intuitive sense. I don't think that there will be a severe dearth of men in psychology any time soon, and perhaps a better way to approach a potential one would be to look empirically at why men are choosing other fields.

Also, the belief that men are not going into psychology because they want to go into making money in other areas seems very closed minded to me. I’ve met many males over interviews/through work/etc. who are just as passionate about practicing psychology as the females I have met, all of whom are not driven by greed.

There is a reason why men aren’t going into the field of clinical psychology, perhaps it is because they are going into psychiatry? I don’t know the exact reasons, and I’d love to investigate why the numbers have dwindled so dramatically over the past thirty years.

I didn't mean to imply that all men are greedy. Of course a lot of men are passionate about psychology (I know several)-- just apparently not as many as the number of women who are passionate about it. I don't think that anyone chooses the impoverished, stress-ridden life of a grad student for 6 years if they're not passionate. I'm talking in aggregate here. There still persists a societal norm that men are the money-makers in the family. This gets socialized at a very early age (again, I'm talking theory here, not sure if empirically validated). It's not a greed thing, it's a simple life choice. I'm not criticizing. There may also be other reasons why men are choosing other fields--I think it's an interesting empirical question-- but the clear, indisputable fact is that they are.

I think you make good points about the need for both perspectives (male and female - we are socialized differently) in psychology. My personal (feminist) hypothesis is that there are two biases that have led to the increase in the disparity in gender: 1) that psychology is often still considered a "soft" science, and thus more available to women (those silly girls can't do math, you know) and 2) that clinical psychology is a "healing" profession and thus more socially acceptable for women. What I mean is that as higher education has become (over the last few decades) more open to women, that psychology is one of the advanced degrees that is more open/available/acceptable for women. So I don't think that it's a dearth of men applying as much as it is there is a significant increase in the number of women applying. Just my two cents

I think that's an interesting point. I wonder if admissions to clinical psych have always been this tough, or if 20-30 years ago, there were mostly men applying but not all that many overall. Any comment from anyone on this forum from that generation? It's certainly the case that women are more likely to pursue graduate degrees than they were in the past. In this case, the influx of women pursuing advanced degrees should be encouraged.

 

[zbombvt]

What you generally see in female dominated fields is that the few men who go into them tend to get promoted faster and end up dominating the highest ranks. You see this in education (mostly women teachers, mostly male principals), librarians (mostly women, but library administrators are mostly men) and nursing (men tend to get promoted faster). Most of this information is coming from an Econ & Gender class I took in college about 6 years ago, so forgive me is this is out-of-date, but I can only assume that the trend has continued.

Thanks for that information. I definitely find it helpful. I do wonder if the same process would occur down the road in the field of clinicial psychology. I don't know the answer. The question would be, who is awarding the promotions currently and who will be awarding promotions in the future.

 

[blindblonde]

I think that's an interesting point. I wonder if admissions to clinical psych have always been this tough, or if 20-30 years ago, there were mostly men applying but not all that many overall. Any comment from anyone on this forum from that generation? It's certainly the case that women are more likely to pursue graduate degrees than they were in the past. In this case, the influx of women pursuing advanced degrees should be encouraged.

Well, my advisor is a clinical psychologist that went to Emory in the early '90s. Here's his bacground--he initially applied to law school, and he received rejections from all the schools. He took a year for clinical experience/research, completely changing tracks. He said he had 3 interviews & acceptances at that time, applying to 10 or so schools. His sense was that the application process was competitive then, and has only gotten worse over the years. There are just more people wanting to get into the field and not enough spots to fill them.

 

[amy203]

To get this back on topic (although it might be interesting to start a thread on the whole male/minority admission issue - it would have to be someone braver than me though!):

Does anyone have an example of how PsyD programs choose which applicants to interview?

 

[paramour]

Yay other "non-religous" people! I always get excited to find you guys!! Although we are much more abundant in these science tracks. But to the minority thing. I had an interview on Fri and there are 7 of us vying for the one spot in a lab. Two males and there are no males currently in that lab. So of course i really really think they are going to take a male candidate. I mean they obviously wouldnt have made it to the interview if they didnt match and were qualified. So using their maleness as a plus i think that one of them is in. It is so frustrating and i just wish you could apply and not indicate sex or ethnicity. Go on credentials and your statement thats it. Sorry for my rant!!

Yeah, I'm afraid I may run into the same problem. Program I interviewed at yesterday had one male in the running for my POI's lab. They kept yacking about it the entire time--how they were sooo excited that a male was interviewing because they've not had a male in the lab for many, many years. We shall see!

 

[joetro]

I'm male, but I honestly don't know how much/if it helps in the process. I have had some interviews in all female labs, and against all female applicants, but that didn't help in terms of getting an offer. I'd hope they picked the most qualified person regardless of gender.

 

[paramour]

I'm male, but I honestly don't know how much/if it helps in the process. I have had some interviews in all female labs, and against all female applicants, but that didn't help in terms of getting an offer. I'd hope they picked the most qualified person regardless of gender.

yeah, I suspect they would (pick the most qualified person) but it's nice to gripe about anyway.

 

[Psychxiety]

I posted a response to DrPsyche on the new gender issue thread.

On a different note...I just got an offer from one of the schools I interviewed at (I would prefer not to name names). Anyway, the prof said he would only be taking one student...but he ended up taking 2.

Does anyone know how that works? How much leeway do professors have to negotiate more funding etc... Does anyone have an experience with what happens with admissions committees after the interviews? Just curious.

 

[NeuroPsyStudent]

Regarding the psyd question, I cannot speak for all programs. But I know that my program looks at GRE, grades, and capacity for psychological insight. This final assessment is made based on a person's ability to be empathic and thoughtful (mentalization), manage ambiguity and complicated feelings, and interpersonal warmth. It is assessed through letters of rec, essays, and an intense interview process. Also, a psychology major as an undergrad is not necessarily a good thing. They appreciate a person trained in broad humanities and sciences, as being an expansive thinker is key.

 

[psychanon]

I posted a response to DrPsyche on the new gender issue thread.

On a different note...I just got an offer from one of the schools I interviewed at (I would prefer not to name names). Anyway, the prof said he would only be taking one student...but he ended up taking 2.

Does anyone know how that works? How much leeway do professors have to negotiate more funding etc... Does anyone have an experience with what happens with admissions committees after the interviews? Just curious.

It totally depends on the program. Maybe some funding lines became available that weren't before, or maybe a faculty member decided not to accept anyone, or maybe someone got a fellowship and didn't take up a TA line. I wouldn't worry about it-- just concentrate on celebrating your acceptance!!

 

[apumic]

...Also, a psychology major as an undergrad is not necessarily a good thing. They appreciate a person trained in broad humanities and sciences, as being an expansive thinker is key.

Out of curiousity, then, how do you think a music and psychology double major is perceived? In addition, do you think having an emphasis (specifically, Counseling/Pre-Clinical) is looked upon as a positive if one is pursuing Clinical Psych at the PsyD/PhD level, or is a "generalist" more preferable?

 

[NeuroPsyStudent]

Apumic, I can only speak for my PsyD program which is rather specialized. But my classmates are richly educated, and many of them are second career having come from an Ivy League undergrad and lots of success in law, the arts, business, etc. I know that there have been musicians who have been admitted. There are also some undergrad psych majors. I think they would prefer students who had more clinical experiences than other aspects of psychology. Also, I wouldn't underestimate the importance of insight obtained through individual therapy. Although it is not required during training, it is assumed that students will be in therapy for at least part of their training (and likely before).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Out of curiousity, then, how do you think a music and psychology double major is perceived? In addition, do you think having an emphasis (specifically, Counseling/Pre-Clinical) is looked upon as a positive if one is pursuing Clinical Psych at the PsyD/PhD level, or is a "generalist" more preferable?

I think it depends on the program....in regard to the importance of your undergraduate major(s). I attended a well-respected liberal arts college and I took pride in my diverse background. I ended up taking most of the psych classes, so I can't speak to being a non-psych major, but I also took classes across majors (a couple of which I had to defend because I got a C+ in one, and a B- in another) Lesson to the wise....do not take a Java Script, an advance philosophy class, or poetry and expect to get A's as a non-major. I took a bunch of other non-major classes I don't recall......but I remember those three because they tweaked my GPA.

-t

 

[Quynh2007]

I think it depends on the program....in regard to the importance of your undergraduate major(s). I attended a well-respected liberal arts college and I took pride in my diverse background. I ended up taking most of the psych classes, so I can't speak to being a non-psych major, but I also took classes across majors (a couple of which I had to defend because I got a C+ in one, and a B- in another) Lesson to the wise....do not take a Java Script, an advance philosophy class, or poetry and expect to get A's as a non-major. I took a bunch of other non-major classes I don't recall......but I remember those three because they tweaked my GPA.

-t

so true, i took a philosophy class (interesting--called Paradoxical puzzle) but it turned out to be heavily logic base (prove that Clinton is a cat and not a cat!) and I tried to take a computer science class where I (thankfully) dropped after realizing it was way over my head.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

so true, i took a philosophy class (interesting--called Paradoxical puzzle) but it turned out to be heavily logic base (prove that Clinton is a cat and not a cat!) and I tried to take a computer science class where I (thankfully) dropped after realizing it was way over my head.

The irony of the Java Script class......the prof was very much an academic, and not a 'real' programmer. Her jaw hit the floor when she found out I was head hunted by multiple well known dot coms <1 yr later (it was for analyst work, but I neglected to tell her that part)

-t