Dealing with impostor syndrome in graduate admissions
August 27, 2015 11:39 AM Subscribe
How do I put my achievements into context as I apply to graduate schools, and not fall prey to impostor syndrome?
So I've been out of undergrad for four years, and the whole time I've worked as a statistician/programmer type at a pretty prestigious university in clinical research. Since then, I've managed to get my name on 12 peer-reviewed publications as either first or second author, including two first-author papers in two of the top journals in the bioinformatics-y niche field I specialize in. I've developed a lot of statistical/machine learning methodology that everyone -- from the professors to residents and students and other staff -- in our group is piggybacking off of and using to publish their own papers, which, in retrospect, is kind of awesome and a bit crazy given how little I knew what I was doing when I first got here. I'm also in the process of putting together everything we know about this methodology into a little mini-course or workshop-type thing that I'll be using to teach people here as well, and I'm pretty excited about that. I've also reviewed for a couple of pretty decent journals too, but that's more like a feather in the cap than anything.
I've always been drawn to grad school for the (relative) amount of freedom and ownership it gives you over your work, and I'd love to be able to build upon what I've already done so far around students and (hopefully!) similarly-minded people, as opposed to doctors and other 100%-clinically-minded professor types here who aren't as knee deep in the quantitative side of things. But in spite of what I've managed to accomplish so far, I feel like what I've done here just won't cut it to get me into the programs I want with advisors I'd like to work with. Contributing to this is that there's not a whole lot of overlap between my current department and the programs and advisors I'm looking into right now, which makes it hard to choose programs that best fit me, how I stack up against the other applicants out there, and to figure out whether or not I should shoot for the moon. I've gotten in touch with grad students at these programs, and they encouraged me to apply but that was a while ago and who knows what kind of position I'm in now.
The only thing I can see hurting my application is my transcript: my GPA wasn't all that great at 3.3-3.4 with a bunch of random Cs here and there, although maybe that's what happens when you do a heavily quantitative major at a massively grade-deflated state school. Yet all my reading so far into the grad admissions process seems to indicate that GPA has next to no significance as long as you can demonstrate research ability, and I guess I have that bit nailed down... so I guess I shouldn't be worrying about my GPA, right? It's not like I'm applying to law or med school here.
Above all, though, I hate how I keep finding ways to minimize my accomplishments. That paper I wrote? We sucked up to and schmoozed the reviewers, and it's not novel enough, anyway, even though it's been cited a couple of times already. That, and it feels like such a silly thing to be obsessing over, since at least quite a few PhD graduates don't even manage to get a single publication out of all the time they put into it. My volume of papers? Nothing impressive, when you consider that the group I'm a part of is geared towards publishing, publishing, publishing like maniacs -- yet most people in my position here never get directly involved in research to begin with, never mind writing papers.
Anyway, I guess I just need some reassurance that, hey, I've actually kicked a bunch of ass so far and showed that I can not only do, but disseminate, some pretty neat work, and hopefully that'll shine through on my applications when I apply this fall. I get that impression from the PIs and professors I work with now, but it feels kinda hollow as they have zero experience with the programs I'm considering. So I'm a bit lost as to where I stand; and this might sound a bit silly, but sometimes I'm not sure if I'm competitive enough to even bother applying to these schools. If there's anything I should be doing, it's probably reaching out to prospective advisors some more but I feel a little silly cold-calling them. Any suggestions or bromides, Green?
So I've been out of undergrad for four years, and the whole time I've worked as a statistician/programmer type at a pretty prestigious university in clinical research. Since then, I've managed to get my name on 12 peer-reviewed publications as either first or second author, including two first-author papers in two of the top journals in the bioinformatics-y niche field I specialize in. I've developed a lot of statistical/machine learning methodology that everyone -- from the professors to residents and students and other staff -- in our group is piggybacking off of and using to publish their own papers, which, in retrospect, is kind of awesome and a bit crazy given how little I knew what I was doing when I first got here. I'm also in the process of putting together everything we know about this methodology into a little mini-course or workshop-type thing that I'll be using to teach people here as well, and I'm pretty excited about that. I've also reviewed for a couple of pretty decent journals too, but that's more like a feather in the cap than anything.
I've always been drawn to grad school for the (relative) amount of freedom and ownership it gives you over your work, and I'd love to be able to build upon what I've already done so far around students and (hopefully!) similarly-minded people, as opposed to doctors and other 100%-clinically-minded professor types here who aren't as knee deep in the quantitative side of things. But in spite of what I've managed to accomplish so far, I feel like what I've done here just won't cut it to get me into the programs I want with advisors I'd like to work with. Contributing to this is that there's not a whole lot of overlap between my current department and the programs and advisors I'm looking into right now, which makes it hard to choose programs that best fit me, how I stack up against the other applicants out there, and to figure out whether or not I should shoot for the moon. I've gotten in touch with grad students at these programs, and they encouraged me to apply but that was a while ago and who knows what kind of position I'm in now.
The only thing I can see hurting my application is my transcript: my GPA wasn't all that great at 3.3-3.4 with a bunch of random Cs here and there, although maybe that's what happens when you do a heavily quantitative major at a massively grade-deflated state school. Yet all my reading so far into the grad admissions process seems to indicate that GPA has next to no significance as long as you can demonstrate research ability, and I guess I have that bit nailed down... so I guess I shouldn't be worrying about my GPA, right? It's not like I'm applying to law or med school here.
Above all, though, I hate how I keep finding ways to minimize my accomplishments. That paper I wrote? We sucked up to and schmoozed the reviewers, and it's not novel enough, anyway, even though it's been cited a couple of times already. That, and it feels like such a silly thing to be obsessing over, since at least quite a few PhD graduates don't even manage to get a single publication out of all the time they put into it. My volume of papers? Nothing impressive, when you consider that the group I'm a part of is geared towards publishing, publishing, publishing like maniacs -- yet most people in my position here never get directly involved in research to begin with, never mind writing papers.
Anyway, I guess I just need some reassurance that, hey, I've actually kicked a bunch of ass so far and showed that I can not only do, but disseminate, some pretty neat work, and hopefully that'll shine through on my applications when I apply this fall. I get that impression from the PIs and professors I work with now, but it feels kinda hollow as they have zero experience with the programs I'm considering. So I'm a bit lost as to where I stand; and this might sound a bit silly, but sometimes I'm not sure if I'm competitive enough to even bother applying to these schools. If there's anything I should be doing, it's probably reaching out to prospective advisors some more but I feel a little silly cold-calling them. Any suggestions or bromides, Green?
You're selling yourself here. But the normal sales strategy of "underpromise and overdeliver" doesn't work because, if you never get the gig to start with, you can't deliver anything--under or over. In applying for jobs and schools, your resume/CV whatever should make you sound as great as you can, within reason. That's so you can get in the door even to have a shot at letting others figure our whether you've "kicked a bunch of ass so far" and, more importantly, are capable of doing so in the future.
You sound like you'll be able to do that easily. You've published a ton. You at least know what those papers are about; you can understand the methodology, read it, explain it to others no doubt, and probably do some more "piggybacking" if need be. You just have to find some way to tie that awesome stuff into what you really want to do.
posted by resurrexit at 11:55 AM on August 27, 2015
You sound like you'll be able to do that easily. You've published a ton. You at least know what those papers are about; you can understand the methodology, read it, explain it to others no doubt, and probably do some more "piggybacking" if need be. You just have to find some way to tie that awesome stuff into what you really want to do.
posted by resurrexit at 11:55 AM on August 27, 2015
What in the holy fuck. You're awesome. You're fine. Have you talked to the people writing you recommendations yet? Do that. Have them look over your CV. Stop downplaying your accomplishments.
Signed, just did this last year after 9 years post undergrad research and a 3.2 undergrad GPA, now sitting on the campus of my new grad institution drinking a smoothie. This will be you in a year (smoothie optional).
posted by deludingmyself at 12:01 PM on August 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
Signed, just did this last year after 9 years post undergrad research and a 3.2 undergrad GPA, now sitting on the campus of my new grad institution drinking a smoothie. This will be you in a year (smoothie optional).
posted by deludingmyself at 12:01 PM on August 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
MeMail me if you want more advice or to talk about which programs you're applying to and how to tailor.
posted by deludingmyself at 12:01 PM on August 27, 2015
posted by deludingmyself at 12:01 PM on August 27, 2015
Also, yes you should be reaching out to advisors once you have your CV locked down, especially if you're applying to programs that don't do rotations. Include the CV, and make your first email (NOT phone call - the meeting by phone or in person is what you want to set up) short and to the point. Either you're asking about the program and whether it's a good fit for you, or you're asking about their lab and whether they take students. I could give you more targeted advice if I knew what kinds of programs you were applying to - you may want to highlight your programming experience in your email.
I've just done 2 days of orientation with about 50 other incoming biomedical PhD students. Having heard a lot of backgrounds, I seriously suspect you could write your own ticket to many R1 institutions, depending on what you're studying.
posted by deludingmyself at 12:07 PM on August 27, 2015
I've just done 2 days of orientation with about 50 other incoming biomedical PhD students. Having heard a lot of backgrounds, I seriously suspect you could write your own ticket to many R1 institutions, depending on what you're studying.
posted by deludingmyself at 12:07 PM on August 27, 2015
OK, so you are seeking reassurance, and other people have given that to you.
I would say that reassurance about your chances of graduate school admission is not the real issue here. If you apply and get in, you will face endless opportunities to feel bad about yourself. If it is this hard for you to apply, I fear you will struggle significantly once you are in a program.
So my advice: instead of obsessing about whether you are good enough to apply, think about why you are considering graduate school in the first place. In my experience advising undergraduates who are thinking about grad school, many of them see it as a status-conferring process rather than as an intellectual endeavor. These students have a very hard time. If you can think more about what is triggering this self doubt, rather than seeking reassurance, I think you will have a better chance of success.
posted by girl flaneur at 12:12 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
I would say that reassurance about your chances of graduate school admission is not the real issue here. If you apply and get in, you will face endless opportunities to feel bad about yourself. If it is this hard for you to apply, I fear you will struggle significantly once you are in a program.
So my advice: instead of obsessing about whether you are good enough to apply, think about why you are considering graduate school in the first place. In my experience advising undergraduates who are thinking about grad school, many of them see it as a status-conferring process rather than as an intellectual endeavor. These students have a very hard time. If you can think more about what is triggering this self doubt, rather than seeking reassurance, I think you will have a better chance of success.
posted by girl flaneur at 12:12 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
You have 12 first- or second-author papers including 2 first-author papers in selective journals? Please apply to my lab.
I've been on a graduate admissions committee for a competitive program. Mainly we're trying to figure out whether someone will be successful at a MSc or PhD project. Having papers is a much better indicator of that than a 4.0.
Lab web site is linked from my profile.
posted by grouse at 1:03 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
I've been on a graduate admissions committee for a competitive program. Mainly we're trying to figure out whether someone will be successful at a MSc or PhD project. Having papers is a much better indicator of that than a 4.0.
Lab web site is linked from my profile.
posted by grouse at 1:03 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
I was accepted into a mathematics Ph.D. program at a well-known, flagship state university with a similar GPA and no research experience whatsoever. My small liberal arts college, while being excellent in a lot of ways, just hadn't developed many undergrad research opportunities during the time I attended. Based on your description, you're an excellent candidate - one of the ultimate goals of the programs you're applying to will be to turn you into a quality researcher, and a high level of research experience and research track record are much better indicators of future success as a researcher than a GPA.
I also had/have issues with impostor syndrome and agree with above posters that you need to treat the process in a very "sales-y" way. Be honest but extremely vocal and positive about all of your accomplishments, and trust the admissions committees' judgment in translating that to what they know about graduate student success. Again, you really do sound like a great Ph.D. candidate - your volume of publishing is high for an undergraduate student, even if it's similar to others in your immediate group, and citations of your paper didn't come from schmoozing reviewers, they came from other researchers recognizing the utility and quality of the work! Believe your professors and PIs - even if they don't have experience with the specific programs you're applying to, they do know quite a lot about success in their fields and they obviously have a good impression of your potential.
posted by augustimagination at 1:33 PM on August 27, 2015
I also had/have issues with impostor syndrome and agree with above posters that you need to treat the process in a very "sales-y" way. Be honest but extremely vocal and positive about all of your accomplishments, and trust the admissions committees' judgment in translating that to what they know about graduate student success. Again, you really do sound like a great Ph.D. candidate - your volume of publishing is high for an undergraduate student, even if it's similar to others in your immediate group, and citations of your paper didn't come from schmoozing reviewers, they came from other researchers recognizing the utility and quality of the work! Believe your professors and PIs - even if they don't have experience with the specific programs you're applying to, they do know quite a lot about success in their fields and they obviously have a good impression of your potential.
posted by augustimagination at 1:33 PM on August 27, 2015
Should you shoot for the moon? Heck yes, you'll never know otherwise, I always say let them decide whether or not they want you, that's their job not yours, your job is to apply.
Having (12!?) publications already is a huge advantage, hopefully that will help you win scholarships as well. Speaking of, have you looked into what scholarships are available in your programs? If you could get funding lined up you'd be a shoe-in literally almost anywhere.
The only thing to worry about with the GPA is whether it would be lower than the cut-off for a given program or scholarship but it's usually a B+ roughly anyway. Sometimes the final two years of undergrad is given more weight. Sometimes programs want a standardized test, or if you could kill a standardized test that shows those grades really weren't representative (I'd only be worried about that if it was in your final two years), you could do it and append that to your applications.
posted by lafemma at 1:39 PM on August 27, 2015
Having (12!?) publications already is a huge advantage, hopefully that will help you win scholarships as well. Speaking of, have you looked into what scholarships are available in your programs? If you could get funding lined up you'd be a shoe-in literally almost anywhere.
The only thing to worry about with the GPA is whether it would be lower than the cut-off for a given program or scholarship but it's usually a B+ roughly anyway. Sometimes the final two years of undergrad is given more weight. Sometimes programs want a standardized test, or if you could kill a standardized test that shows those grades really weren't representative (I'd only be worried about that if it was in your final two years), you could do it and append that to your applications.
posted by lafemma at 1:39 PM on August 27, 2015
Hi, I run graduate admissions at a top-20 STEM department. GPA matters, GRE matters, publications matter, but what matters most is your letters.
So can you clarify: are you now in a bio department and applying in computer science? I'm trying to understand why it is that your professors aren't familiar with the programs you're applying to.
posted by escabeche at 8:43 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
So can you clarify: are you now in a bio department and applying in computer science? I'm trying to understand why it is that your professors aren't familiar with the programs you're applying to.
posted by escabeche at 8:43 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
You're fine. Bigger issue is whatever is going on with your confidence or lack thereof will likely make you less happier than you could be once you are in a program.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:09 PM on August 27, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:09 PM on August 27, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
Best wishes.
posted by blue t-shirt at 11:54 AM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]