<p>On this point I agree completely. Often we each “hear” something entirely different even when we are participaring in the same conversation.</p>
<p>If her intent was to have a witness present, a parent is very nearly the worst possible choice, as they can hardly be said to be objective and unbiased. It may be that the nebulous admissions director would not accept the presence of a non-parent at the meeting, but that doesn’t make the mother’s attendance worthwhile.</p>
<p>I will also echo the “why all the contract talk?” comments - I cannot see that there was anything going on there that would require a parents presence, and think she was there mostly for moral support and attitude.</p>
<p>These are, afterall online college forums where people ask for and get our advice…obviously, all we can go on is the information presented to us. Personally, I think this particular topic would have been more accurate posted as an ‘accusation’ of discrimination. From there it seems people have gone off in various directions, regardless of whether or not these have anything to do with the topic at hand.</p>
<p>Agree that the fact that the applicant was a minor who can’t sign a legally binding contract is irrelevant. There was no possibility that she would be asked to sign a contract at the meeting. </p>
<p>I’m speculating, but my hunch is that the profs think she is too immature for the program. When push came to shove, the prof may have felt that the young woman would react better to the statement “you’re too young” than to “you’re too immature.” So, he just said she was too young. The backpacking through Europe comment may have been said because the prof felt that this girl is too sheltered by her parents, too unworldly, too immature,etc. and that some traveling on her own might help her grow up. </p>
<p>Moreover, Kelsey herself admits in the article that the prof said she “lacked experience.” That’s a perfectly legit reason to reject her.</p>
<p>I might be wrong, but it sounds like she is crying because something in life didn’t go her way for once.</p>
<p>Being rejected for lack of experience is a completely legit reason to be rejected from graduate school. Instead of crying about her “wasted” career, if she is really as smart as she claims to be, she should suck it up, excel in industry for a couple of years and then reapply.</p>
<p>I’m not 21 yet so I’ll probably be one of the youngest in the grad applicant pool. Concerned about reverse age discrimination especially because there are so many people with 3+ years of research experience and masters degrees applying. </p>
<p>Do schools directly compare all applicants to each other? or do they know they want about half the class to be current undergrads and then only compare undergrads to each other?</p>
<p>The average age of PhD students is 27, so figure it takes students 5-6 years to complete. That means the average range is age 24-30. So yeah you are on the young side.</p>
<p>tswift1 - I’ll be applying for grad school at the age of 20 too. I know it’s tempting to say “Well, they’ve done all this research and so I don’t match up,” but if you’re graduating college in 3 years then you obviously know how to study, how to write, how to read. And that, I think will get us farther than we think. Our minds haven’t quite been molded yet and we’re willing to work hard for that university.</p>
<p>Or at least, that’s how I think about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a given that everyone applying to graduate school will have those skills. They do not distinguish one student from the larger pool of graduate applicants.</p>
<p>Studies have also shown that older doctoral students (over the age of 25) tend to perform better in graduate school than younger students due to a variety of factors: maturity, life experience (more time to explore risks and opportunities), and work experience (money savings accumulated from working several years). Older graduate students know what they want upon enrollment and follow a determined plan to graduate in a timely manner. Of course, this varies by field, but I noticed older students have fewer doubts (Is this the right program for me? Should I have worked a couple of years first?) about their programs than younger students.</p>
<p>My daughter has just finished a disappointing round of clinical psy interviews. She was by far the youngest applicant at many schools (just turned 22) and at two schools where she interviewed, the only one with no post-bac degree (MA/MS) or post-bac research jobs. She is graduating from a top LAC-4.0 in PSY,3.85 overall, lots of research through her school and in the summer at grant funded programs, one publication (one of 4 names from a NIH fellowship), presentations completed all pre-med requirements (here’s where the B’s were earned) and had GRE scores (new one) in the 98%ile for verbal and 96%ile for math (760 on PSY) and involvement in community programs helping teens and female prisoners.</p>
<p>She’s looking at applying to med school now-much better chance of getting in!</p>
<p>I have no empathy for this kid. I did not get the sense she has done anything other than earn top grades. Sounds like her profs were too comfortable with her by discussing age. She could have been easily rejected on other grounds aside from age.</p>
<p>I’m not 21 yet so I’ll probably be one of the youngest in the grad applicant pool. Concerned about reverse age discrimination especially because there are so many people with 3+ years of research experience and masters degrees applying.</p>
<p>That’s not “reverse age discrimination,” that’s selecting people on the basis of their research experiences and educational credentials, which every degree and job ever does. They’re not worried about basic skills; they want people to have the preparation and focus to finish the degree in a reasonable amount of time. They also are not concerned with being “fair.”</p>
<p>Advice to those thinking of applying in clinical psych-get a few years working in a lab and get clear on what specifically it is that you want to research in addition to the grades, GRE and summer research internships. You don’t need to have experience with clinical populations. The programs are more interested in research skills. The fact that my daughter had a variety of research interests and was not clearly drawn to one detailed interest (such as dopamine and reward systems-it has to be that specific) worked against her, not her age. Age looks like more of a factor because young applicants are less likely to be clear on their research interests. I imagine the programs do this in order to have students who can get right to work and finish in 5-6 years.</p>
<p>I think this also applies to other fields, like the biomedical sciences. My son had the same issue with not being decisive enough on his research, I think it can happen to anyone at any age, however being very young (in my son’s case 16) makes this more likely because they are still exploring. My son will likely pursue a masters in addition to volunteering in a lab before reapplying again…Their minds may be intellectually beyond their classmates and even professor’s, they may also be just as mature in most ways, however they still are teenagers and teenage brains are still developing! If they are kept focused and challenged during this in between period,just imagine what they may accomplish in a few years:)</p>
<p>According to her blog Kelsey is a masters degree student studying forensic psychology. She does not state where. So she has found a place to continue her education and get additional experience in her field. She has made a step towards narrowing her field of interest and seeing if this choice fits her. </p>
<p>She does make it a point to brag about her educational milestones and age in her blog. This alone is a huge sign of immaturity.</p>
<p>She will have to develop a thick skin if she is headed into the political world of academia and research.</p>
<p>Maturity and focus matter. I am sure that there might be a few 17 yr olds that are able to make these choices at such a young age but I don’t think they are out there bragging about getting into college at 14. Being the youngest ever at their university…etc.</p>
<p>This is very true,and in fact being young is only a detriment to doctorate admissions (very different than undergraduate where it is positive) and NOT a positive thing. They do NOT want to hire a teenager, you’re a liability at that age, that’s the reality. My son actually passes off as a 20 something year old, however when applying age must be stated:( He hopes 18 will be easier than 16 when applying,at least he will be a legal adult.</p>
<p>Update for any young applicants reading this thread :)</p>
<p>I applied to biomedical PhD programs as a 20 year old college senior and got interviews at nine out of the ten schools I applied to. All were top programs at prestigious institutions. Age wasn’t an issue at all during the interviews, professors were happy to see young students excited about science and eager to start. I’ve only worked in one lab and never had anything published, but most professors were perfectly okay with that. Seemed like you’re fine on research experience if you have proven that you are comfortable and confident in the laboratory environment, and that you are on top of things with your own research project. I’ve never done most of the techniques commonly used in the labs of professors I was interviewing with, but I wasn’t even questioned about it. No one seemed to think I would have trouble getting trained or catching up. </p>
<p>I don’t think I’m at a huge disadvantage being young, and I’m glad most of the professors and admissions committees agree. The Ivies were the most friendly, with a lot of professors telling me how happy they were to see young students like me. Stanford was the worst. Lot of rude professors, directed question-and-answer style interviews instead of conversations, and all the current students were old.</p>
<p>there is no such thing as reverse discrimination! it is discrimination plain and simple.</p>
<p>tswift1 - I’m assuming that you were 20, and was nearing if not already 21 by the time you finished your BA and started graduate school. That’s not that young - I was only a year older than that (21 when I applied, 22 when I started graduate school). Most people are in the 21-23 age range when they graduate from undergrad if they have followed the traditional high school -> college pathway. That’s very different from a 17-year-old applying to PhD programs.</p>
<p>I believe that this young woman also evidenced that she didn’t know what graduate school was about when she mentioned that she “received nothing but straight As in the last semesters of classes.” Graduate school is not about getting straight As, and many students who were successful in the structured environment of undergrad are not necessarily successful in the very unstructured environment of graduate school. It requires a maturity and perseverance that a lot of 17-year-olds do not have. Clinical psychology PhD students have to do clinical hours counseling people. I would not want to be seen by a 19-year-old clinical student, nor would I want to be seen by a 23-year-old clinical psychologist. Will she even be able to see clients in her first year? She’s a minor!</p>
<p>I have a friend in grad school for clinical psychology. He is a fourty-something year old recovering crack cocaine addict with six years of sobriety. All of the psychologists at the treatment center where he first got clean were also in twelve step programs themselves. If she were going into a different field it would be less of an issue, but it is unclear to me what patient population she intends on working with and how her life gives her the depth to connect with them and earn their trust. I read recently in the NY Times that there is a small market for counseling prodigies, but other than that it is unclear to me what growing experiences she has had that shaped the way she perceives the world. To use the old cliche, graduate programs are looking for people, not numbers. </p>
<p>My advisor gives the same advice to zealous young achievers that she was given, “Don’t feel like you have to rush, you’ll never have the years again.” It is more out of care that they do not get sucked too deeply into the idea that they have to be nonstop success that they forget to become well-rounded people who have lived full, varied lives.</p>