Psyd: CIIS vs Wright vs Loma Linda

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

f

Loma Linda = 7th Day Adventists.

I think CIIS is getting their APA accredidation yanked. That's really not good. I've heard good things about Wright if you're into a psychodynamic perspective.

f

There are a couple of good threads on Wright if you do a search. There are some good things and some not good things. If you want an APA internship, then it may not be a great choice because their APA match rate is poor.

Stay far far away from CIIS.

As for Loma Linda...The APA match rates are poor, though better than the other two listed programs: 64%, 70%, 67%, 73%, 50%, 50%, 50%.

The real concern is with the cost: "Example, based on normal progression through the program: Psy.D. degree, $29,483.00 x 4 years = $117,932.00, plus 1 year of internship at $2,640.00, plus 5 years of University fees = $12,980.00 = Total cost of $133,552.00."

That doesn't include cost of living. In California.

Originally Posted by therapist4chnge

there are a couple of good threads on wright if you do a search. There are some good things and some not good things. If you want an apa internship, then it may not be a great choice because their apa match rate is poor.

Stay far far away from ciis.

As for loma linda...the apa match rates are poor, though better than the other two listed programs: 64%, 70%, 67%, 73%, 50%, 50%, 50%.

The real concern is with the cost: "example, based on normal progression through the program: Psy.d. Degree, $29,483.00 x 4 years = $117,932.00, plus 1 year of internship at $2,640.00, plus 5 years of university fees = $12,980.00 = total cost of $133,552.00."

that doesn't include cost of living. In california.

+1

f

Originally Posted by shervintrad

Thanks so much for the responses. Yea the CIIS program is chancy since it could/could not be revoked by August. As goes for Wright, from what I hear, the APA intern matching is low since no one wants to move away from the area...which sounds weird.....but what is good about it is that the professor-student relationships are very strong and the admissions dept. says that they are the top school in terms of spending money to ensure that students have the most personal 1-on-1 contact with professors in the country. As goes for Loma Linda, the program seems to be much more difficult than the others so the question is, does the name of the school and the fact that it's a university add more value to the fact of going there...I don't know..is teacher-student interaction and closeness more important or the latter?

So they charge you and arm and leg so they can spend a ton of money on giving your cohort of 50 alot of "individual attention?" We now think this is "good" and a sign of quality?! Meanwhile, normal programs have 5-10 people per cohort where students work under the same (one or two) professor/lab the entire time, tuition is remitted, and students get a stipend.

Whats wrong with everyone?

d

Originally Posted by shervintrad

actually the cohort is split into 3 groups so would be around 17 and that is again split into 3 groups so each professor is responsible for group of 5-6 students.

That's nothing special. Many faculty members mentor fewer than 5 or 6 graduate students at the same time (and at more reputable schools).

d

Originally Posted by shervintrad

actually the cohort is split into 3 groups so would be around 17 and that is again split into 3 groups so each professor is responsible for group of 5-6 students.

I think ya missed my overarching point, dude.

I think there is something interesting you might want to take note of here:

You have had 11 response by various posters and nobody has actually recommended that you go to any of the 3 schools on your list.

Originally Posted by erg923

You have had 11 response by various posters and nobody has actually recommended that you go to any of the 3 schools on your list.

These type of threads are about the OP trying to find someone to support one or more of the schools, despite the fact that the vast majority of posters are providing hard data to the contrary.

f

Originally Posted by shervintrad

hahahah good point

...

Originally Posted by Kappadocia

That's nothing special. Many faculty members mentor fewer than 5 or 6 graduate students at the same time (and at more reputable schools).

Also, those 5-6 students are generally spread out over all the cohorts in the program, not 5-6 students each year.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Also, those 5-6 students are generally spread out over all the cohorts in the program, not 5-6 students each year.

Good point. Most faculty in "traditional" programs will take2-4 students/year, with perhaps an off year thrown in there every now and again. The largest I've ever seen a lab get in my program, for example, is around 12-15 students with one particularly prolific professor; on the average, I'd imagine it's closer to 6-8.

Although 5-6/year is much, much better than 15-20/year, obviously. Then again, for one professor, I don't know that either one would be considered ideal. 5-6 students is enough to keep any one faculty member quite busy.

I'd actually say even 2-4 students/year is on the large end for university programs. Most places I looked at took one student per lab per year (MAYBE 2), with frequent years off. I think 7 (total across all years) is the largest number of students I know of any faculty member advising here. The faculty I work with right now will generally have no more than 2-4 grad students total at any given time (though they also take post-docs and mentor junior faculty, so I suppose that should count too).

Originally Posted by Ollie123

I'd actually say even 2-4 students/year is on the large end for university programs. Most places I looked at took one student per lab per year (MAYBE 2), with frequent years off. I think 7 (total across all years) is the largest number of students I know of any faculty member advising here. The faculty I work with right now will generally have no more than 2-4 grad students total at any given time (though they also take post-docs and mentor junior faculty, so I suppose that should count too).

2/year seems pretty common to me, and is probably the modal value in our program. Then again, we don't have interns or postdocs, so that likely factors into grad admissions decisions. And yes, faculty will frequently take a year or two off from accepting students.

Whatever the case, anything more than 2-4 is certainly on the high end, and in my opinion, could easily tax the resources of any one faculty member.

h

Originally Posted by shervintrad

These sound like PhD programs that you guys are talking about...PsyD's don't have to really do labs or research in depth...the student/teacher ratio of 6-8 I am referring to is in the classroom...not research/lab setting

Most reputable Psy.D. programs are going to require in-depth research, and will thus have associated research labs.

Although yes, a 6-8 student/teach ratio in the classroom environment isn't bad at all.

Originally Posted by shervintrad

These sound like PhD programs that you guys are talking about...PsyD's don't have to really do labs or research in depth...the student/teacher ratio of 6-8 I am referring to is in the classroom...not research/lab setting

Uhm....no? In depth research is important at the quality Psy.D. programs too. The crappy Psy.D. programs barely resemble a real doctoral program; the same can be said for poor Ph.D. programs. If a person isn't concerned with mentorship and isn't concerned with research...they shouldn't be pursuing doctoral training. Period.

Acronym: That's true hopefully it will turn out for the best
Therapist: I agree...what I meant was that research/lab work isn't as heavily emphasized universally among PsyD programs vs PhD