Top Ranked PsyD programs- US news and world report

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

US news and world report came out with the newest rankings of the top clinical psychology programs. They lumped together PsyD and PhD, so to save you some time, here are the top ranked PsyD programs:

1. Rutgers
2. PGSP/Stanford University Consortium
2. Baylor
4. Loyola University Maryland
4. Virginia Consortium
6. Pepperdine
7. Long Island Univ
7. LIU-CW Post
9. Yeshiva
9. Xavier
11. Univ of Hartford
12. Nova Southeastern
13. Univ. of Indianapolis
13. Indiana Univ. of Pennsylvania
15. Roosevelt.
15. Widener
17. Univ. of Denver
17. George Washington University
17. Antioch Univ. New England
20. The Wright Institute

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsa...ology-rankings

OP: No offense to you, but the ranking of Clinical Psychology programs by USN&WR is as accurate as asking a Magic 8-Ball to predict the weather.

I think we should petition the APA to require every first year clinical psych comp exam include a section where the student needs to critique the piss poor methodology used by USN&WR. If they can't critically evaluate the gaping holes in the thinking behind their 'research', the student deserve to fail their first year. The USN&WR continues to be an albatross of fail, yet it is still referenced as a legitimate ranking system.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

albatross of fail

heh

Here are the latest APA match rates I could find for each of the programs you listed:

1. Rutgers = 77%
2. PGSP/Stanford University Consortium = 76%
2. Baylor = 88% (over last 11 yrs)
3. Loyola University Maryland
3. Virginia Consortium = 77%
6. Pepperdine = 66%
7. Univ. of Indianapolis = 68%
8. Indiana Univ. of Pennsylvania = 64%
9. Roosevelt. = 71%
9. Widener = 100%
11. Univ. of Denver = 93%
11. George Washington University = 47%
11. Antioch Univ. New England = 44%
14. The Wright Institute = 41%

Although a handful of these programs have pretty solid match rates, I find it hard to believe that these programs are the best the PysD has to offer. Several programs were overlooked that show their latest rates to be higher than most of these 14 schools - Florida Institute of Technology (86%), Yeshiva University (85% in 2012)

Just to make note - I do not attend a PsyD program, so I am not biased in favor of them...I just really think it's horrible just how misleading USN & WR is for hopefuls who are beginning their (confusing enough) application process.

IMO, the ones ranked 1-3 are all pretty solid, though PGSP is very expensive. Widener has a captive internship, so take that as you may. Denver should be higher, I agree about FIT, Yeshiva, and would add U of hartford, Long Island U, Xavier and maybe some others over the bottom of the list there.

Hmmm, what i am learning from this thread is that a school should be primarily judged on its APA match history. Correct?

Originally Posted by Dirkwww

Hmmm, what i am learning from this thread is that a school should be primarily judged on its APA match history. Correct?

That would be one of the most important indicators of program success these days. You'd also want to see statistics for post-graduate employment, licensure pass rates, etc. Data about things that mean something tangible as opposed to some fluff rankings with no scientific merit.

Originally Posted by Dirkwww

Hmmm, what i am learning from this thread is that a school should be primarily judged on its APA match history. Correct?

Not primarily, but I'd consider it an exclusion criteria if a program has a consistent history of matching below the posted APPIC average. EPPP scoring (not just the pass rate) is another exclusionary data point I'd use. Outside of that I'd look at the program split between clinical and research pursuits, and if there are faculty that match up with my area(s) of interest. The latter points are more subjective, but they speak to "fit".

Originally Posted by Sanman

IMO, the ones ranked 1-3 are all pretty solid, though PGSP is very expensive.

I think that's a very important point. My understanding is that Rutgers students come out of their program with less than half the average debt load of PGSP / PAU students (200K+ is the norm for PGSP / PAU these days, AFAIK). So, while it looks like Rutgers outcomes are in line with PGSP / PAU, the comparative cost-benefit analysis seems to swing sharply in favor of a program like Rutgers (e.g., partially funded).

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

Not primarily, but I'd consider it an exclusion criteria if a program has a consistent history of matching below the posted APPIC average. EPPP scoring (not just the pass rate) is another exclusionary data point I'd use. Outside of that I'd look at the program split between clinical and research pursuits, and if there are faculty that match up with my area(s) of interest. The latter points are more subjective, but they speak to "fit".

And don't forget about funding/ expected debt. That's another problem with this list. How could anyone argue that landing a funded position at Baylor has the same value as paying an arm and a leg for PGSP.?

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

And don't forget about funding/ expected debt. That's another problem with this list. How could anyone argue that landing a funded position at Baylor has the same value as paying an arm and a leg for PGSP.?

Unless the outcomes at Baylor are significantly (very significantly) below PGSP / PAU, I'm not sure how they beat out Baylor. This is a weird list.

Originally Posted by JeyRo

Unless the outcomes at Baylor are significantly (very significantly) below PGSP / PAU, I'm not sure how they beat out Baylor. This is a weird list.

Actually, if the OP's list is correct, it appears they are tied by the USN&WR criteria. Not sure why PGSP is listed first, since Baylor would be first alphabetically.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Actually, if the OP's list is correct, it appears they are tied by the USN&WR criteria. Not sure why PGSP is listed first, since Baylor would be first alphabetically.

I see. Even so, I don't get it.

I'm not exactly sure how they calculate this, but I think that some on the list should probably not be there [all the ones with sub 50% APA match]. For example, LIU @ CW Post: 79% APA & has partial funding and Yeshiva has 86% APA.

Originally Posted by mcvcm92

I'm not exactly sure how they calculate this, but I think that some on the list should probably not be there [all the ones with sub 50% APA match]. For example, LIU @ CW Post: 79% APA & has partial funding and Yeshiva has 86% APA.

The last three on the list have match rates that appear almost comparable with Argosy.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

And don't forget about funding/ expected debt. That's another problem with this list. How could anyone argue that landing a funded position at Baylor has the same value as paying an arm and a leg for PGSP.?

+1.

I almost mentioned the debt/funding stuff...but I didn't want to get it off on that tangent, but yes...that is a *huge* piece of the puzzle. I think PGSP is the most expensive program out there because of the high tutition and abnormally high housing costs that CA is so well known for.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

+1.

I almost mentioned the debt/funding stuff...but I didn't want to get it off on that tangent, but yes...that is a *huge* piece of the puzzle. I think PGSP is the most expensive program out there because of the high tutition and abnormally high housing costs that CA is so well known for.

PLUS they got Zimbardo on their faculty roster...

Originally Posted by psigirl

PLUS they got Zimbardo on their faculty roster...

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

+1.

I almost mentioned the debt/funding stuff...but I didn't want to get it off on that tangent, but yes...that is a *huge* piece of the puzzle. I think PGSP is the most expensive program out there because of the high tutition and abnormally high housing costs that CA is so well known for.

The reason I mentioned it in particular is that I believe the rest of the top 3 (5) all provide at least partial funding. I'm not 100% sure about Loyola though.

I checked the list again and added the few programs I was not aware of that were mentioned on this board. I think they are all on there now. There are many PsyD programs that are not on the ranked list.

I graduated from one of the top tier schools, so I am obviously biased in how I view this list. I am not aware at all of how US news formulates these rankings, so Therapist for Change, feel free to fill us in.

There are obviously a lot of things that go into choosing a program, with ranking being just one factor. APA Internship match rates, WHERE people match, where people obtain jobs after graduating, reputation of program, faculty, fit, affordability based on the individual applicant's means, location, practicum sites available to the student, etc, are all important to consider.

Also, it is unclear to me where exactly Univ of Denver is supposed to be ranked, It's listed twice- once above Rutgers, and once much lower. I am assuming one is a PhD program.

Originally Posted by PsyDabc123

I checked the list again and added the few programs I was not aware of that were mentioned on this board. I think they are all on there now. There are many PsyD programs that are not on the ranked list.

I graduated from one of the top tier schools, so I am obviously biased in how I view this list. I am not aware at all of how US news formulates these rankings, so Therapist for Change, feel free to fill us in.

There are obviously a lot of things that go into choosing a program, with ranking being just one factor. APA Internship match rates, WHERE people match, where people obtain jobs after graduating, reputation of program, faculty, fit, affordability based on the individual applicant's means, location, practicum sites available to the student, etc, are all important to consider.

Nova Southeastern should also be on there, between Univ. of Hartford and Univ. of Indianapolis.

Originally Posted by PsyDabc123

I checked the list again and added the few programs I was not aware of that were mentioned on this board. I think they are all on there now. There are many PsyD programs that are not on the ranked list.

I graduated from one of the top tier schools, so I am obviously biased in how I view this list. I am not aware at all of how US news formulates these rankings, so Therapist for Change, feel free to fill us in.

There are obviously a lot of things that go into choosing a program, with ranking being just one factor. APA Internship match rates, WHERE people match, where people obtain jobs after graduating, reputation of program, faculty, fit, affordability based on the individual applicant's means, location, practicum sites available to the student, etc, are all important to consider.

I believe their methodology is listed on the site somewhere. As best I can remember, for clinical psych, I think they basically just mail questionnaires out to all programs asking the DCT's to rate the reputation (on a 1-5 likert scale, I think) of every other program. I think they then just average these, and voila, rankings list complete. Or something along those lines; at least, that's what springs to mind immediately for some reason as to how the list is developed.

Originally Posted by Sanman

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I figure his salary contributed to the "high cost" of the program, in addition to the high cost of living in the bay area. It's neither a good thing or a bad thing...to me

Originally Posted by psigirl

I figure his salary contributed to the "high cost" of the program, in addition to the high cost of living in the bay area. It's neither a good thing or a bad thing...to me

They have like, five vice presidents of academic affairs or something, all making six figures, so that has something to do with it too. Of course, the celebrity emeritus faculty make a dent too.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

. How could anyone argue that landing a funded position at Baylor has the same value as paying an arm and a leg for PGSP.?

waco, texas.... san francisco.. hmm

Most of the time you'll be working/studying/researching/teaching....geography shouldn't be the deciding factor when the difference could be $125k-$150k+.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

Most of the time you'll be working/studying/researching/teaching....geography shouldn't be the deciding factor when the difference could be $125k-$150k+.

I think it's really valuable to remind folks that that kind of debt can follow them for a long time (I think a lot of younger people really don't have any idea what it's like to sign on for that kind of burden). On the other hand there are other considerations besides money. I recall profs advising sexual minority or transgender students to apply to programs or postdocs in geographic regions, both domestic and abroad, that could have ranged from inhospitable to downright dangerous. Sometimes there are sound reasons (beyond personal preferences) to cleave to the major metro centers.

Originally Posted by PsyDabc123

waco, texas.... san francisco.. hmm

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

Most of the time you'll be working/studying/researching/teaching....geography shouldn't be the deciding factor when the difference could be $125k-$150k+.

It is A factor for some. There were students in my cohort who chose the consortium over baylor. I'm sure baylor is an excellent program, but many factors go into an applicant's decision, cost being one factor among many others.

I was just perusing old threads and saw a number of previous discussions about the cost of psyd programs, particularly pgsp-stanford. So I hope this thread does not veer this way too. Seems kind of redundant. Let me sum it up for those of you who are not aware: the consortium is a fantastic psyd program with outstanding faculty, with students who match at the top internship sites in the country. The consortium is also expensive as is living in northern california, so applicants should consider cost as a factor when making their decision.

When I saw the new ranking list had been released, I had been excited to see that the consortium was ranked as highly as it was, given the program's newness relative to the other psyd programs at the top of the list. Although I'm not surprised, given how highly I view the program and how much I enjoyed my experience.

Originally Posted by wigflip

I think it's really valuable to remind folks that that kind of debt can follow them for a long time (I think a lot of younger people really don't have any idea what it's like to sign on for that kind of burden). On the other hand there are other considerations besides money. I recall profs advising sexual minority or transgender students to apply to programs or postdocs in geographic regions, both domestic and abroad, that could have ranged from inhospitable to downright dangerous. Sometimes there are sound reasons (beyond personal preferences) to cleave to the major metro centers.

Thanks, wigflip. You made a point I had been thinking of.

Originally Posted by wigflip

I think it's really valuable to remind folks that that kind of debt can follow them for a long time (I think a lot of younger people really don't have any idea what it's like to sign on for that kind of burden). On the other hand there are other considerations besides money. I recall profs advising sexual minority or transgender students to apply to programs or postdocs in geographic regions, both domestic and abroad, that could have ranged from inhospitable to downright dangerous. Sometimes there are sound reasons (beyond personal preferences) to cleave to the major metro centers.

I don't disagree that there are other factors, but this is an atypical situation. Contrast this position with the countless people who take the position of, "I don't want to leave [fill in state/city....usually CA] because of [my family, the weather, my friends], so I'm going to go to [fill in program that costs an arm & a leg that may or may not even be APA-acred....usually in CA]." This is not a realistic way of selecting a program, yet many students make this mistake.

I know multiple graduates from PGSP, and they indeed offer some quality training. My caveat is more of a general one because students on average under-estimate the average debt they will acquire, and they over-estimate their earning potential. I am actually reviewing the available published data on these two subjects right now (for another endeavor).

Right. I concur with your general point of wanting to forewarn applicants to think twice about taking that much debt. However I think the Consortium is an anomaly. Usually in the PsyD world, high tuition = generally less than stellar training and a disproportionate amount of financially naive students. But this is just not the case for the consortium.

Your research sounds interesting,T4C. I'd like to see the compilation of that data, too. Specifically, the schools that have the most students who underestimate their earning potential. Are you using an average, national earning potential, or getting more specific with earning potential based on location, specialty, setting, etc?

Originally Posted by PsyDabc123

When I saw the new ranking list had been released, I had been excited to see that the consortium was ranked as highly as it was, given the program's newness relative to the other psyd programs at the top of the list. Although I'm not surprised, given how highly I view the program and how much I enjoyed my experience.

I thought we had all agreed that the rankings don't mean anything because of the flawed methodology they use to create them? I'm not saying that the consortium isn't a good school--I've heard many great things about the program. But the fact that it's ranked highly doesn't really mean anything, does it?

Originally Posted by dumbledoresgirl

I thought we had all agreed that the rankings don't mean anything because of the flawed methodology they use to create them? I'm not saying that the consortium isn't a good school--I've heard many great things about the program. But the fact that it's ranked highly doesn't really mean anything, does it?

It looks like I was pretty much spot on in my post above describing the methodology. Per the US News website:

All the health rankings are based solely on the results of peer assessment surveys sent to deans, other administrators, and/or faculty at accredited degree programs or schools in each discipline. All schools surveyed in a discipline were sent the same number of surveys. Respondents rated the academic quality of programs on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (outstanding). They were instructed to select "don't know" if they did not have enough knowledge to rate a program. Only fully accredited programs in good standing during the survey period are ranked. Those schools with the highest average scores appear in the rankings.

In the fall of 2011, surveys were conducted for the 2012 rankings of doctor of pharmacy programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (response rate: 39 percent); doctoral programs in clinical psychology accredited by the American Psychological Association (25 percent)...

So basically, the rankings tell us the opinions of the "deans, other administrators, and/or faculty" at 25% of APA accredited programs.

It is a bit of a pointless debate anyway. Most of the better PsyD programs still rank the same and mid level PhD programs. For practice, most places won't care. In academia, there will still be a stigma. The only time it really matters is when you go to a really poorly ranked program that can't get you a decent internship.

Originally Posted by dumbledoresgirl

I thought we had all agreed that the rankings don't mean anything because of the flawed methodology they use to create them?

We did. I'm not sure of your point. My post that you quoted was in response to debate about the consortium. I think the ranking is spot on, given my personal experience associated with the consortium. And the methodology for the rankings is also super flawed. Both are true.

Originally Posted by PsyDabc123

We did. I'm not sure of your point. My post that you quoted was in response to debate about the consortium. I think the ranking is spot on, given my personal experience associated with the consortium. And the methodology for the rankings is also super flawed. Both are true.

As I said in my post, I wasn't debating how good the consortium is. My point was exactly what I said--that the rankings don't mean anything. Wasn't contradicting what you said, just clarifying. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Originally Posted by PsyDabc123

Also, it is unclear to me where exactly Univ of Denver is supposed to be ranked, It's listed twice- once above Rutgers, and once much lower. I am assuming one is a PhD program.

Yep. The first one is their clinical PhD program.

Originally Posted by Sanman

It is a bit of a pointless debate anyway. Most of the better PsyD programs still rank the same and mid level PhD programs.

If there is going to be an actual, legit ranking system that gets put into place, I would propose that psyd and phd programs are ranked separately, depending on the factors that go into the ranking.

Originally Posted by Sanman

The only time it really matters is when you go to a really poorly ranked program that can't get you a decent internship.

+1. Pretty much all of the programs on that list above have a solid number of students who obtain solid internships. Maybe with the exception of the Wright, which varies widely in their internship match success. Some of their students end up at amazing APA internships across the country, however the Wright attracts many students who do not want to leave the bay area and are completely fine with doing a CAPIC internship.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

I don't disagree that there are other factors, but this is an atypical situation. Contrast this position with the countless people who take the position of, "I don't want to leave [fill in state/city....usually CA] because of [my family, the weather, my friends], so I'm going to go to [fill in program that costs an arm & a leg that may or may not even be APA-acred....usually in CA]." This is not a realistic way of selecting a program, yet many students make this mistake.

The bolded portion above is the same rationale given by my undergrad professors when they defended the exclusion of LGBT people from discussions of X, research in area Y, etc.

Originally Posted by PsyDabc123

Your research sounds interesting,T4C. I'd like to see the compilation of that data, too.

I agree.

Originally Posted by GratitudeAttitu

Here are the latest APA match rates I could find for each of the programs you listed:

1. Rutgers = 77%
2. PGSP/Stanford University Consortium = 76%
2. Baylor = 88% (over last 11 yrs)
3. Loyola University Maryland
3. Virginia Consortium = 77%
6. Pepperdine = 66%
7. Univ. of Indianapolis = 68%
8. Indiana Univ. of Pennsylvania = 64%
9. Roosevelt. = 71%
9. Widener = 100%
11. Univ. of Denver = 93%
11. George Washington University = 47%
11. Antioch Univ. New England = 44%
14. The Wright Institute = 41%

Although a handful of these programs have pretty solid match rates, I find it hard to believe that these programs are the best the PysD has to offer. Several programs were overlooked that show their latest rates to be higher than most of these 14 schools - Florida Institute of Technology (86%), Yeshiva University (85% in 2012)

Just to make note - I do not attend a PsyD program, so I am not biased in favor of them...I just really think it's horrible just how misleading USN & WR is for hopefuls who are beginning their (confusing enough) application process.

I think internship match rates (i.e., 1) APA, 2) APPIC-ONLY, 3) NON-APPIC) are one of the most critical sources of information to use when narrowing down the schools students are considering. However, I think we need to look at a few other factors as well, some of which have been mentioned already:

INCOMING CLASS STATISTICS
Mean Cohort Size
Mean GPA
Mean Verbal GRE
Mean Quantitative GRE
Mean Psychology GRE

OUTCOME DATA
Percent obtaining License
Attrition
Mean Years to Completion
Mean E.P.P.P. Test Scores

COST
Tuition (In-State vs Out-of-State)
Scholarships
Assistanceships
Opportunities for paid RA positions to offset costs

OTHER SOURCES OF RANKING
Gourman Report
Journal Articles pertaining to the topic (i.e., EPPP scores, faculty publications, etc)

In comparison to others on this thread, I do think the US News and Reports information is helpful, but only when other components are considered in addition to it (see above). In my opinion, all of these factors contribute to how one "could" choose to rank any program, akin to a multiple regression equation. The difficulty, as I see it, is weighting the different sources of data in terms of their predictive value when ranking programs. However, I am sure someone will/has attempted to do this already. I would agree that the US News and Reports information should be weighted lower than most, if not all, of the sources of data. I think all students considering PsyD programs should look at all of these sources of information.

Want to plug my own Psy.D. program here. Indiana State Univerisity has an 89% (90/101) APPIC match rate over the past 12 years. The majority of those who came before me were matched to APA accredited internship sites. Regarding costs, we receive tuition remission that covers approximately 85% of our tuition. I pay roughly $1,800 a semester. Additionally, during the first two years all students get assistantship pay. Third and fourth year students get a paid placement at established sites in the community (private practice, state prison, community MH, school counseling center). Sure, Terre Haute isn't a cultural hotbed and there's not a lot to do, but it's only four years.