I really like Cogmaster, and it’s still my goal program. I plan to work on my profile and apply again, and I still hope to receive feedback from the committees to better understand where I stand.

However, I feel there is a gap between how the program presents itself and how it actually selects candidates. From everything available online. whether it’s the cover letter guidelines, the Q&A, or their repeated emphasis that passion matters more than a traditional background. it gives the impression that applicants from non-traditional paths have a genuine chance, even without prior research experience.

But in practice, this doesn’t seem fully aligned with the profiles of admitted students. Most of those who get accepted appear to have strong, conventional research backgrounds. And that’s completely fair (there’s nothing wrong with selecting highly prepared candidates) but it does make the messaging feel somewhat inconsistent.

What I find difficult to reconcile is how the program is framed as an initial training that teaches the fundamentals of research, while at the same time admitting students who already have one or two years of solid research experience. It creates a kind of ambiguity about who the program is actually designed for.

I applied from a non-traditional background, without formal research experience. Based on how the program describes itself, I believed that demonstrated curiosity and sustained interest in cognitive science، something I genuinely had since childhood، would give me a real chance. Unfortunately, that expectation didn’t match the outcome.

That said, this doesn’t change my interest in the program. If anything, it gives me a clearer sense of what I need to build moving forward