What PIs look for in applicants

[MCParent]

Applicant time is gearing up, and that "WAMC" thread is staying active. But the answer is always "fit." So, I thought it might be useful if some of the academic folks who supervise students de-mystified some of their process in going through the selection process so that applicants can have an idea of what it looks like for us, and what "fit" might mean from the application materials.

For me:
1. Degree/GPA/GRE first glance: Have to meet the (relatively low) minimum reqs for the college and university. This would include things like attending an accredited undergrad program and having passable GPA/GRE scores. Not many folks cut out here. I don't care about GRE analytical writing (the way it's scored is stupid and I have a writing sample in the statement).
2. Basic fit. Does the applicant mention me in their personal statement a their intended PI (they have to pick me on a form and that's how the applications are routed, but they should also mention me and anyone else they picked in the statement)? Do they mention the ongoing work in my lab? Do they articulate a basic fit with my interests and with conducting research (I am happy to train people who go on to train clinicians, but they need to express an interest in my main job too)?
3. GPA/GRE second glance: Looking more carefully at the grades and trajectories. A dismal first year followed by straight As is better than a constant 3.2. The presence of harder classes and stats class is good. With grade inflation, it can be hard to place these exactly. A few people are cut out here (for having a GPA that meets cutoffs but is consistently floating at about a 3.2, suggesting that they did not do really well in any of the classes), and this lets me come up with a basic tiered order for everyone. I look at transcripts fairly carefully.
4. Prior research experience: Can really move people through the tiers. Lots of experience, varied experience, and clearly articulated experience (e.g., some CVs list presentations and publications, and also describe the person's roles on the project, are helpful--I like that. Statement is another place to do this), solidifies the top tier position. Lack of experiences or not being able to articulate a depth to experiences can drop folks down a tier. Applicants should make the kinds of experiences they've had super clear so that I can find this easy, in case the letter writer didn't--not just vague descriptions in the middle of a personal statement. Having posters is good. Having publications is great. I am fine with seeing what folks have "in development" but I'd really like to know the stage that project is at if they list it in their CV (e.g., by saying the state of the project under the entry, such as "data collection complete and analyses underway"). Also skills learned are good. It's really useful to have someone come in who knows SPSS, better if they know R, and amazingly useful if they know how to manipulate data in complex ways in Excel. So, listing specific tasks undertaken on projects would be super useful. I think applicants are taught to mock professor CVs to make theirs, and honestly I don't really agree with that--they aren't applying for professor jobs, so there are some important things that are not on my CV that could be on an applicant's CV.
5. One really good letter. As someone who worked through undergrad, and because so many classes are taught by grad students, I can appreciate that not everyone can get to know multiple professors well. I want one, good, clear letter with clear examples of experiences. The other two letters are bonus if they're good, but should definitely not have any red flags. Mostly this solidifies the top tier, but some folks can move down if the personal statement and the main advisor letter don't agree (rarely happens, but it can).
6. Cull: No red flag in the personal statement. Now I need a reason to NOT interview the people who are still in the top tier. These would be the "I can treat depression correctly and better than other people because I had depression" things. Sometimes one or two people move down a tier here.
7. Hard part: Review the top tier and see who expresses research interests that are the most clear and a fit to what I plan on doing. I don't expect people to have a research program developed (I got asked on doc program interviews once, "What would the title of your dissertation be if you wrote it today" and I thought that was a weird question), but articulation of an interest in a population and a research question that reasonably matches where my area is at and is going is good. Novel ideas are good, but it's hard to articulate a lot of novelty in the limits of a personal statement. Can the person add uniquely to my lab in a way that my current lab composition does have?
8. Interviews. I would love to take everyone I interview, on paper. So, being inappropriate during the applicant social or whatever (telling off-color jokes, hitting on the host student, saying bad things about the program you are interviewing with [all things people have done]) is like a gift, because I can remove one of person from the hard equation. So, don't do that. It absolutely gets back to the PI, even if a student (incorrectly) tells you that the social is not part of the interview. Being openly hostile to other applicants is also very bad (and I've seen people refuse to talk to people interviewing for the same lab). Being friendly and calm is good. Being nervous is fine, too; you don't need to apologize for it profusely. Don't talk badly about anywhere else you interviewed. As long as you are dressed appropriately I don't care what you wear. Stand outs can articulate a knowledge of the field (if you're so keen on research, be able to articulate why you want to do a counseling/clinical program and not social or other experimental) and ask forward-thinking questions (e.g., asking where people in the lab tend to go for internship), and the interview becomes a nerd-out.

That's basically my process. Anyone else want to go through theirs?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Thanks for posting this.

I'll outline my process a bit like you did. With the high number of applicants applying to programs, I am looking to find those who stand out in some way.

1. My first pass is going to be intended to divide people into three groups 'No, Maybe, Yes'. If you make it into Yes, I'll look further at your application. If you land in Maybe I'll do the same. The goal is to avoid the no group at this stage. That means have a base level of performance on your GPA, GRE, and (you won't believe how common this is) follow the instructions for submission. As MCParent said, if these are far below where others are you need some other VERY strong reason to stand out. Submit what is asked for. I double check (triple check reall; I'm obsessive) with the office for anything that might have been missed. It's not a big issue with electronic submissions now, but I still do just in case something weird caused it. Approximately 1/3 end up in the No group. Generally speaking, if you have a generally decent application (I haven't read letters or personal statements yet) then you won't end up in the No group.

2. Next up is the Yes Group. I'm going to go this group to try and figure out what the top stand outs look like. After the basic pass for GPA/GRE, I don't spend a lot of time on that. GRE is poorly predictive of graduate success so I don't bother with it beyond the basic level. Here I am interested more in the person.
2A. Do they articulate a way their research and professional interests fit into my research (i.e., my job)? I don't worry too much if they don't get exactly what I do. Because of my specialty, I sort of expect this. If they are interested in the topic or the population that I focus on, have a passion for it, and show a curiosity and openness to learn then that is what I want to see. I don't care if someone wants to be a practice-oriented person. Thats fine, but show you want to practice with a specialty in the general area I work in and that you'll be part of my work.
2B. I take a look at writing ability. Better writing ability means I have to spend less time teaching people to write academically and that means they can do more stuff with my research. It also bodes well for professional growth. Teaching to write takes time. This is why I enjoy on-site writing exercises during interview. I want to see where the applicant is at and not where an advisor who edited their paper is at.
2C. Next is letters of reference. As MCParent said, I don't expect 3 stellar letters if you are straight out of undergrad. I do if you apply with a masters. I am looking for letter that shows research involvement, details the tasks, and (most importantly) provides evidence of independence and initiative. These are critical skills for graduate school and they can't be taught.
2D. I review the C.V. to find out what research production has been like. Don't copy my CV format. Use yours to tell me what you have done on projects (data entry is different than running participants and conducting analyses). Things that look great: undergrad thesis, names on presentations, good summaries of active involvement in projects where you are not just a seat but areal team member, and (of course) a publication.
2E. From this, can I get a sense of the person? Do they seem like the type of person I could enjoy working with? I may not be able to answer this question at this stage, but I'm thinking about it. Mentorship is a multi-year process and I don't want to be miserable. I don't want them to be either. Some of this comes from the personal statement. Some of it comes from who your letter writers are. If I know them, it goes a long way because I know the type of people that they work with.

3. Depending on how big the Yes pile is, I will spend different amounts of time going through the maybe stack to pull people into it. I look through this pile with the same thinking as above and am trying to determine if I need missed anyone that I need to "weed in" to the yes pile. The number I pull back into the yes pile will depend on the competitiveness of the applicants in a given year.

I'll repeat #2 until I'm down to 3 applicants or so to interview. Sometimes I'll do phone interviews if it is a hard call. I want to make sure I get to know people and give them a chance. This is a really hard process for us on this end as well. When it comes to an interview, act like you are a professional. Don't hit on other graduate students, don't get drunk while you are interviewing, don't make sexist/racist jokes, don't be competitive with other applicants (hint: be supportive and friendly), don't be afraid to socialize and get to know others, and don't act like you already have a PhD. I don't want to work with that. Yes, these all happen. The interview is a time where you are 100% always being interviewed. If someone cant control their worst impulses for 1 day, they won't be able to for years in the program.

Below are some things I don't spend as much time with:
-- It doesn't matter if you transferred in from a community college. I don't hold that against you. I did too.
-- I don't directly compare GPAs because grade inflation is a problem.
-- I don't care what you wear so long as its reasonably professional
-- I don't spend a ton of time on what undergrad institution you went to. There are lots of reasons you didn't go to Harvard. Family obligations, home location, money, relationships, etc play a big role in where we apply and consider.

 

[MCParent]

-- I don't spend a ton of time on what undergrad institution you went to. There are lots of reasons you didn't go to Harvard.

- going to a top tier undergrad. Something with hard admission standards.

I basically don't consider undergrad institution at all. I don't think I can even recall the specific schools most of my current students went to. I think where someone falls for UG has a lot to do with circumstances.

 

[EmotRegulation]

This definitely could be a useful thread for applicants!

I first look at the list of all applicants and who ranked me first. I will look at anyone who listed me in their top three faculty to work with at my program, but I look most closely at the people who listed me as their first choice, as these are the people whose research interests are most likely to line up with mine. I look at their GRE scores and grades because of funding opportunities that are directly tied to these things, but other than that I don't care much about GRE scores. I care more about grades in psychology courses and showing improvement over time if grades were bad/semi-bad at some point in time.

I spend the most time looking at the CV and personal statement. What kind of research experience does a person have? I need my applicants to have SOME....no research is a pretty immediate disqualifier (though I'd consider making an exception to this if the personal statement explained it and demonstrated research aptitude some other way...not that I know what that would look like). It doesn't need to be research in my area, though, just some research experience that gives me the impression the person knows what they are getting into. Presentations are a plus and publications are gravy--these show me a person has at least done a bit of work on running or interpreting statistics. I also look for other elements of the CV and statement--does the person have other interests? Did they volunteer or do extra things? Do they come across like a curious, enthusiastic person who wants to learn? Do they seem to care about things/people/the world outside of psychology as well as in it? Bonus points for someone who says they love statistics and/or has strong statistics experience, or someone with a computer programming background, and/or someone who has done any kind of grant admin or lab manager type of job. Oh, and the writing thing is big, I won't interview someone who has a poorly written statement or the CV is formatted poorly. This suggests to me someone who didn't do their diligence in getting feedback or looking online for examples, which likewise suggests they won't do a great job of working independently and finding solutions to problems during graduate training.

We aren't allowed to ask questions about cultural background in the application, but I actually look for this and try to think closely about systemic factors that may have influenced people's experiences. Someone who went to a smaller school with less presitge is likely to have had poorer mentoring on grad school applications and likely also has less research experience. I want to take these things into account, because otherwise I'd end up only interviewing white people from bigger schools, and I don't want to do that.

For me, the interview is the key part. I want to take a student who I like as a person, who I connect with to some degree. I want to be able to be myself with my students, and my lab has a pretty silly casual vibe when we are together as a group. I would absolutely nix someone who is great on paper if they didn't get along with my students. I've had applicants in the past suck up to me but say rude things about the other applicants....that kind of stuff gets back to us faculty, and will move someone to the bottom of my list. How the applicants treat my current grad students is HUGE for me. I also want to see some kind of enthusiasm. I've had applicants who were great on paper but just seemed uninterested at the interview. I recognize that some of that is probably nerves and/or trying to come across as "professional," but it's not unprofessional to look excited. Oh, and I also look for honesty over giving the "right" answer (this may be just me)....I want to see the real person, not their "interview face," if at all possible.

 

[SolRed]

What are some of your GRE cut off points? And if the GRE is low, is that an immediate send to the 'no' pile.

 

[Justanothergrad]

What are some of your GRE cut off points? And if the GRE is low, is that an immediate send to the 'no' pile.

I dont have a set/specific "cut point" and tend to look more holistically at the application. I also consider it within scope of what is typical of my university. GRE isn't a great predictor of long term graduate achievement. It also depends on what you mean by "low" 40th %rank is different than 5%rank.

 

[MCParent]

What are some of your GRE cut off points? And if the GRE is low, is that an immediate send to the 'no' pile.

If the GRE is below what the college or institution allows, then yes it is a move to the no pile. An exceptionally good GRE is a standout to me and can be used to get the person special, better funding at many places. Otherwise I’d consider it as a wholistic package.

 

[Intentionalgrad]

Do you have a set minimum amount of research experience before you consider an applicant? Also, how do you view applicants whose main research experiences aren't recent?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Do you have a set minimum amount of research experience before you consider an applicant? Also, how do you view applicants whose main research experiences aren't recent?

I don't have a minimum because I'm looking for quality over quantity. As time goes up, so do my expectations of involvement in research products. Moreover, I am expecting a more complex description of interests matching this experience and a better understanding of how you/those experiences/your skills fit into my lab and research. This question varies a bit by the competitiveness of the applicant pool (if you have 0 products and 1 semester and the rest of the competitive pool has 1-2 posters and 1-2 years then you are less competitive in this area/quantification of research experience).

I don't know that I have encountered folks who had non-recent research with enough regularity to give you any feedback on that.

 

[psych.meout]

If the GRE is below what the college or institution allows, then yes it is a move to the no pile. An exceptionally good GRE is a standout to me and can be used to get the person special, better funding at many places. Otherwise I’d consider it as a wholistic package.

I can speak to this from the other side. Every offer of admission I received came with additional funding (varied depending on the program) and/or some kind of opt out of work commitments (TA or RA) for funding based on my GRE scores.

While I agree to an extent, upper tier undergrad institutions require better performance in high school and on standardized tests. That, coupled with my preference for people who take computationally challenging classes should be pretty good rule in for horsepower.

The latter seems very relevant, especially if these skills were applied in some way, e.g., running the stats in the labs they worked in. Conversely, the former just has too many variables involved that aren't necessarily attributable to the skill or aptitude of the applicant to be nearly as useful, e.g., legacy admissions.

 

[psych.meout]

I think you can generally say a university of Texas student has passed a higher bar than a university of north Texas student and that an insignificant amount of variance in that is due to legacy student status.

I'm not saying legacy status is the only factor, just that there are many others that go into a student's undergrad institution beyond aptitude.