Immediately after accepting my offer at a reputed t20 cognitive psychology lab, I started running into issues that jeopardized my ability to graduate on the merits of my research program alone. Will remain vague on the details, although it wasn’t just me who felt this way: colleagues also noted prickly, suspect dynamics, and some proactively encouraged me to consider a way out. I couldn’t be more grateful to those mentors… considering how things turned out.
I stuck it out for three years, worked VERY hard, networked at conferences, got published, passed my quals, and got my master’s. It came at a heavy cost to my mental and physical health, but I don’t regret securing experience and something to show for before considering applying other places (vs applying earlier in my program, which seems more typical). While enrolled in my current program, I applied to a carefully curated set of labs I would’ve said yes to transferring into in a heartbeat. I was interviewed at all of them, got into a few, and I just committed to transferring into a dream T10 lab with a PI whom I know, now with more experience in the field, to be an amazing person and scholar. I’ll be retaking quals in the Fall, but my coursework is fully waived, so will be ABD again in early 2026… if all goes well.
While lurking this sub during that process, I saw a lot of conflicting advice. Honestly, I think that’s fair to advise against transferring at-face. It’s not for everyone. It can most certainly backfire. I was lucky and very supported… I even personally know someone who tried transferring, didn’t get in anywhere, and now feels trapped in a lab that hates him. I learned from the mistakes he shared as I put my applications together once again.
If you’re switching fields or moving for “external” reasons (two-body problem, PI relocation, etc.), that’s one thing. But if you’re trying to leave for “prickly” reasons (bad fit, toxic lab, status concerns) it’s a different beast. There’s no clear formula that guarantees success, and tbh, transferring isn’t always the best way to make use of your time, effort, and reputation. Considering the current sociopolitical situation, it’s something I might not have ever dreamed of in a 2025 cycle.
That said, it IS worth considering in select cases, especially if others are signaling it too, you love the work you do, and your mental health and potential hinges on the specific nature of your environment rather than academia at large (especially if you hope to stay in academia moving forward). Here are a few things I think helped me when putting a package together, and that might help some others considering a move.
• Show you have something to offer. Don’t approach it with a “please save me” mindset. You need to show up as someone who’s accomplished, capable, independent yet trainable, and ready to contribute from day one. Show that your application has real value despite the baggage. If your package has notable weak spots (too low test scores, no pubs/rr’s, non-transferrable work that dies when you leave your lab, no vision of future research, etc.), maybe reconsider transferring.
• Don’t dwell on the past. Let your materials (and ideally your rec letters) imply the reasons for the move. Use your SOP to talk about what you did and what you want to do next. You’re not a victim: you’re someone who’s rising to the occasion. If you really need to clarify, maybe send the PI an email after applying acknowledging the app will be vague because you want to be mindful of the circumstances and people involved, but that you’re more than open to questions if they have any.
• Write everything as if your old PI/lab might read it. This is admittedly hard to do while staying true to your experiences, but I can’t emphasize enough how helpful it is to keep your overt rationale as “external” and diplomatic as possible. Avoid airing dirty laundry. Keep the tone forward-facing and focused on growth. Maybe even waive it off to being open to share more in interviews (at which stage you also are to remain very diplomatic), or suggest they reach out to your letter writers for more insight. This matters even more if your field is “small” (cogpsy is huge, but my specific topic is smaller… and while everyone will soon forget this ever happened… worth remembering people talk)
• Be intentional about where you apply. Kitchen-sink apps look and read like kitchen-sink apps. I only applied to a handful of programs where the fit was strong, and I made each application ad-hoc to each lab. I was also transparent with programs about the small number of schools I was applying to: I think showing programs my selection was mindful and research-driven (vs “desperate”) helped show I was serious. I imagine keeping your pool small also helps mitigate potential backfiring of rejections; easier to keep the intent to transfer under wraps if you apply to less places.
• Letters matter WAY more than they did in round 1. I was lucky to have two internal letters within the department (outside lab) and two external who were 100% on helping me succeed. Make sure your letter writers know you and your work well, actually understand the story you want to tell, and, ideally, that their reputation helps boost your case. If you don’t trust your letter writers to do your case diligence, maybe you need new letter writers… or maybe a sign to reconsider transferring altogether. Make sure you have advocates you can count on.
• overall, if your application reads as low-drama, forward-looking, and mission-driven, I think it signals to the new program that you’re an asset, not a liability.
Happy to answer questions in the comments or DMs if this is helpful to anyone. There’s no guidebook for this stuff, and there probably never will be. But hopefully this helps someone who’s feeling stuck and weighing their options. Sorry for leaving some parts vague… I tried to be specific enough while not-immediately-identifiable. Throwaway account.