program rankings

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

TMS@1987

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
126
Reaction score
2
does the ranking of your doctoral program really matter when you get out into the field? I only ask because I am strongly considering going for a PsyD but the highest I can find a PsyD program ranked was in the 50's and I was wondering if the rankings actually mattered.

Members don't see this ad.
 
does the ranking of your doctoral program really matter when you get out into the field? I only ask because I am strongly considering going for a PsyD but the highest I can find a PsyD program ranked was in the 50's and I was wondering if the rankings actually mattered.

It has been previously expressed many times on the SDN Psychology Thread that one should not get so caught up on rankings. Most of the famous school rankings are by people outside of the field of psychology (I do not have the links but the one done by the the Temple professor based on his research does not even match the ones doen by big magazines). Clinical Psychology graduate school is not like going to Law or Business School. In terms of eventual job placement, you should be looking at the data and informantion the specific school has on the types of jobs/ careers the graduates obtain. More specifically, for the research schools, what the students of a given Professor, with whom you want to work, are doing upon graduation. The students of one professor at a school may have great success in the job market while the professors of another have a mor edifficult time. Of course, many of the famous schools have excellent success in placement of their graduates but the jobs/ careers may not even be what you personally want. Hypothetically, a graduate of U of Wisconsin should have a great chance of landing a teaching or research position but if you are planning on being a working psychotherapist this type of career is not important to you. Even if one gets into places such as UCLA and Yale, one would be a fool to make the decision of attendance based on one school being ranked 1 and the other a 2. In short, do not get so bogged down in the rankings. Instead, make sure the school is APA accredited, has the type of program you want, has the research you want, has a professor (s) with whom you want to work, is a school you are able to finance, has good success in getting internships, and is in a place you can live for the duration of your program.
 
Rankings by school are pretty meaningless.

Not sure how it would work for PsyDs, but for PhDs what matters is how well you match with the faculty, and how productive that PERSON is, not the department as a whole. Rankings can be a general guideline. In MOST cases, someone at Yale or Penn is more productive than someone at <insert no name school>. Likely you will have more resources to work with at Yale because the department as a whole probably has more resources.

Beyond that, it matters little. If you want to practice, as far as I can tell it barely matters at all.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Would this be different if a person was interested in doing clinical research? I'd think that the reputation of your institution would have a bearing on places that would be willing to hire you on as a researcher/professor.

GiantSteps, you mentioned the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I'd think that someone who graduated from that school would be more likely to snag a more lucrative professorship than someone who graduated from, say, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Is that true? Maybe I'm totally off base.
 
It matters more for researchers, yes, but not as much as you may think.

The answer is yes, it tends to work out that way because as a whole the individual researchers at Wisc-Mad (and similar schools) tends to be stronger. THIS is what schools will look at.

So if Wisc-Milwaukee has a fantastic researcher who is publishing tons of GOOD work (that's important to keep in mind since some people have tons of publications but when you look at it, it isn't very good work, and most of the publications are in unknown journals), than in most cases, you are better off going there than with someone who isn't doing as much at Wisc-Mad (though knowing the school, I don't think they HAVE any faculty that aren't doing much!).

So basically, people care where you went to school, but not as much as what lab you came out of. Because really, what does the "school" do for you? Classes? Ask any grad student, classes are relatively minor, relatively unimportant parts of graduate school.

If all other things are equal, than yes, I would choose Wisc-Mad over Wisc-Mil. The point I think we're all trying to make is that unlike law or mba programs, ranking should not be a major factor.

My personal recommendation (its what I did) is to look at faculty ONLY first. I used rankings as one way to examine the likely productivity of my faculty of interest, but that was about it. You can narrow it down later, but I think people (at least on the research side of things) ought to reframe the grad school search as a "lab search" with the grad school being secondary.
 
I agree that rankings aren't that big of a deal. That said, if you are going to look at them, look at rankings that have some empirical basis. In other words, look at PsychInfo before looking at US News as I know there are a few on PsychInfo, especially with research.
 
Since you are talking about doing a PsyD and so I'm assuming that getting a good job practicing clinical psychology is your priority really... I figure that you are going to have different concerns from the concerns of a person who is looking to get a good job doing research or teaching other people how to be researchers / clinical psychologists.

The concerns of those latter people are likely to be the concerns that feed into the ranking. As such... PsyD programs would be expected to rank lower (not because they are 'worse' programs across the board, but because they don't focus on research hence would be expected to not do so well in it!) It would be like ranking philosophy programs on the basis of which employed the greatest number of women. That ranking wouldn't have any relevant bearing on my choice.

One thing that I would be interested in (if I was in your position) would be job placement record. Institutions should (ideally) know where there graduates are now. At the very least the institutions really should keep data on the first job (if any) that their graduates obtained after graduation. That is important because:

A) You probably don't want to go to a program if they have a very low program completion rate (I'd jolly well want to know why it was so low)
B) You probably don't want to go to a program if their graduates have a lot of trouble obtaining nice jobs compared to the graduates of other institutions.

I don't know if departments / programs are REQUIRED to make the above information publically accessible but they jolly well should be.

Graduate school is one hell of an investment. If the majority of people who graduate from one program end up working at McDonalds and the majority of people who graduate from a different program end up working in some public system and the majority of people who graduate from yet another program end up with successful private practices then I surely know which institution I'd pick!

(Unless, of course, you can break the demographic down a bit more with respect to 'wanted to stay in the area' or 'didn't get a job because stayed home with kids instead' etc etc etc)

> The highest I can find a PsyD program ranked was in the 50's and I was wondering if the rankings actually mattered.

Probably not for what interests you... One idea would be to see how the PsyD programs are ranked compared with one another. So if program A is 54 and program B is 59 and program C is 87 then you have a comparative ranking of PsyD programs. Then the crucial issue becomes: How do they decide on the ranking? Research? If that doesn't matter to you then the ranking is likely to be irrelevant.

Personally... Don't know how many PsyD programs there are... But I'd see what you can find about what happened to their grads and check their completion rate. I'd even email a student or two and ask them how they liked being at their program and whether they would have chosen differently in hindsight. I'd also ask them about the person you want to work with (if there is one) to check that they are friendly / accessible / give a **** about their students etc.
 
Speaking of job placement.....a BIG factor for any program is the INTERNSHIP placement rate. Internship is a required step in the process, and if you can't get placed, you can't get licensed. They have APA-approved programs, APPIC-approved programs, and then everything else. APA is what you want, some get by with APPIC (though you need to 'prove' your hours and site to the state), and then 'everything else' is a crapshoot....but you can still get licensed.

You need to ask EVERY program about their placement rate (APA / APPIC), because that is usually a good quick and dirty stat you can use to include/exclude a program. The national average is 75%, so if the program places significantly lower than that, be VERY wary of moving forward with them. Make sure to get their placement rate across a number of years, since it can fluctuate a bit by year. APPIC did a 5 or 6 (?) year study on placement rates, so that is worth checking out. It is now a couple years old, so take that data and ask each program for the most recent years.

-t
 
I agree with what others have said about who you work with being important, but I actually do think that your program's prestige (not particularly based on any one rankings system, but in terms of general regard in the field) probably does play at least some role in helping you get academic jobs in clinical research. Some (but not all!!) people in academia are prestige ******, and I doubt that's ever going to change. But nothing is nearly as important as being able to produce a lot of strong publications. I don't think program prestige matters much at all if you're going to do clinical work, as long as you go to a program that provides adequate training.
 
I really think that it depends on what you want. If you want to be employed to research then the quantity and quality of your research is going to be a major factor in your employment prospects. Another factor that is really going to matter is when researchers who are known for the quality and quantity of their own research write glowing references endorsing your potential to go on and do work of good quality and quantity. So... Go with the research rankings (moderated with your research interests to be sure). The easiest way to get in on a quality research publication is to do some dogswork for someone who is likely to get accepted into a quality journal. If you go someplace where people aren't getting quality articles out there then the concern might be that... They aren't well placed to show you how to go about improving on their performance.

With respect to practicing... In some instances institution goes a long way. Especially if you plan to work in private practice. Some clients are very pleased with having a Harvard graduated therapist, for example. If you wanted to hit the 'higher end' of the functioning market then institutional affiliation might help one out...
 
Some clients are very pleased with having a Harvard graduated therapist, for example.

Which is probably the exception that proves the rule. ;) Harvard's clinical program isn't (maybe this year? I forget) APA-approved.

How many people outside psych know that? Not many. How many people outside psych know the difference between Capella, Argosy, Rutgers, and BU? Probably just as few. If you want to practice, be somewhere you can start networking early, and get some good niche-training.
 
For clarity, I want to make sure what I say isn't interpreted as "rankings don't matter at ALL" because psychanon is right that there are some prestige ****** in the academic world.

I just want to make sure people know that what lab you come out of matters a LOT more than what rank the program is. For example, someone who is accepted into Ken Sher's lab at U Missouri, Columbia should not necessarily be terribly concerned about the fact that U Missouri is not generally thought to be a very highly-ranked program (not that its a bad school by any means, but its not typically thought of as a high-prestige school). The fact that you'd have the name of one of the top addictions researchers in the world would likely trump any doubts about your school. It would be rare indeed for someone doing hiring to think "Well why did he go THERE?" once they saw Ken Sher's name since even outside the addictions world, I think most faculty at least know the name. Same deal with Barlow and BU. BU isn't exactly the most prestigious of programs either (though again, its an excellent school, just not one people typically think of as "elite", whatever that means). Yet coming out of Barlow's lab probably makes up for that fact.

So yes, do consider prestige, but when top faculty members are at lesser known schools, that doesn't mean you shouldn't apply.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
maybe here is simply a case where the research rankings are different in my field than they are in psychology.

in my field institutional ranking (for my field - NOT for the university overall) is decided by a survey of well-esteemed peers in the field. they are given a list of the members of staff in the institution (without being given the institutions name) and asked to rank 'how appealling would this department look to prospecitive graduate students'. both in the field quite generally, and on the basis of the major subdivisions in the field.

under such a ranking scheme - if professor x was the world leader in subject speciality z then you can expect that peer review would result in professor x's institution being given the highest ranking for speciality z.

so... the rankings are actually quite useful for determining where you want to go IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN AN ACADEMIC CAREER DOING RESEARCH
 
maybe here is simply a case where the research rankings are different in my field than they are in psychology.

in my field institutional ranking (for my field - NOT for the university overall) is decided by a survey of well-esteemed peers in the field. they are given a list of the members of staff in the institution (without being given the institutions name) and asked to rank 'how appealling would this department look to prospecitive graduate students'. both in the field quite generally, and on the basis of the major subdivisions in the field.

under such a ranking scheme - if professor x was the world leader in subject speciality z then you can expect that peer review would result in professor x's institution being given the highest ranking for speciality z.

so... the rankings are actually quite useful for determining where you want to go IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN AN ACADEMIC CAREER DOING RESEARCH

You're right, it's completely different.
 
Yup, completely and totally different system. I've never seen a ranking list by subdivision at least beyond clinical vs. social vs. cognitive. That would probably be more helpful.

Psychology is just too broad a field though for overall rankings to mean squat.
 
"Yeah....I'm going to do a study to determine a more accurate want to rank clinical programs based on sub-specialty....wanna give me some money? ;)"

I think the study that looked at research production was on the right track (concentrate on mean publications...so it is adjusted to not favor larger faculties), review current data on faculty placement (there's got to be some data out there, though it'd probably need to be redone), add in APPIC placement %'s, and survey data from APPIC TD (Training Director), which contains feedback of their recent placements...maybe over a 3 year span. I'm not sure if adding in post-doc placement would be too subjective, but it'd probably be interesting. This would at least address some of the major areas of a program: research, clinical training/performance, internship placement, post-doc / academic placement.

OBVIOUSLY this is completely off the cuff, and there are a ton of things wrong with the current design, but I think it would provide a better idea of what is going on. I'd think balanced programs would score the best (which I think IS important), and programs that fall too far from either side will be more noticeable.

-t

ps. The TD data would be the hardest to collect, but i'm pretty sure the rest wouldn't be too horribly bad. Thoughts?
 
I definitely think mean publications is a good way to go, but I'd like to see mean publication RATE included as well.

A school with a bunch of ancient faculty members with a medium number of publications is not necessarily better than one with a bunch of young faculty putting out tons of new research.

Obviously the ideal would be established faculty who are ALSO still publishing a lot, but that's why I think its good to have both statistics:)

Post-doc placement is a good idea, but it should be clumped with faculty placement since there are still occasions on which people get faculty jobs without post-docs and since that's INCREDIBLE these days, it shouldn't count against them:)

I like your thinking though T4C.
 
[OFF TOPIC]

I like your thinking though T4C.

Yeah...I pretty much am awesome. I am actually wearing my "You can't spell AWESOME without "M" "E" shirt. It is with scrabble letters, and was a gift from my aunt and uncle whom I play scrabble with when I visit.[/OFF TOPIC]

-------------------------

I think rate is also important (I almost added that, but then felt like I'd have to add other things too), but then we also run into the issue of 'quality' publications. Obviously something published in AJP is a bigger deal then getting 2 things published in a 3rd tier journal. I'm not sure there is an accurate way to capture that data, it'd probably be a major limitation to consider. I think post-doc is a very important area to look at, but the major limitation could be access and/or geography. Many people may want to settle down, so they'd take a less competitive post-doc. I think it would still be worth looking at, because the better schools can get the better placements, which lead to better post-docs...though it isn't always the case. Of course, 'better' is quite subjective. I consider a 'better' internship placement as one that allows solid clinical training, didactics, and some assessment and research. Others may want more research and assessment and less clinical. Maybe if the TDs would rank their site on a Likert for balance, and then we could probably tease out what schools typically place at which types fo programs. This wouldn't be ground breaker, but I bet it would raise some eye brows for some places.

-t
 
The APA has 54 (I think?) divisions. Granted, divisions of any broad field are pretty arbitrary anyway.

The psychology vs philosophy debate is definitely one I've never seen on this forum before. Interesting.
 
Probably worth noting that I never said psychology was broader than philosophy.

Just that it was too broad for a general ranking of schools to be of much use. I think the strength of philosophy programs rankings is that they apparently AREN'T general, and are subdivided. Rankings would be infinitely more meaningful in that context.
 
The APA has 54 (I think?) divisions. Granted, divisions of any broad field are pretty arbitrary anyway.

The psychology vs philosophy debate is definitely one I've never seen on this forum before. Interesting.

Feel free to start a thread on it, though I want to make sure to keep this thread on topic. :D

*I started a new thread with the off-shoot topic, feel free to check it out*

-t
 
> The psychology vs philosophy debate is definitely one I've never seen on this forum before. Interesting.

Hey. I didn't intend to start a debate on philosophy vs psychology - I meant to consider some different ways that rankings could be done that could result in rankings more meaningfully reflecting the concerns that prospective students actually have. This certainly wasn't to say that the psychology ranking system is 'better' or that the philosophy ranking system was 'better' ('better' is always going to be interest relative) - though it might be that the philosophy system is 'better' relative to philosophy students interests as is reflected in people taking it seriously in philosophy, whereas students seem to be fairly dismissive of the psychology system being a meaningful indicator of where one would be better off going (relative to the interests that psychology students have).

I could have talked about biology rankings or physics rankings or whatever. I just chose the philosophy one because that is the one that I'm most familiar with. The way current ranking systems ARE constructed is a useful platform for considering how one can construct a BETTER ranking system that gives students some information as to where it would be better for them to go - relative to their interests, of course.

> *I started a new thread with the off-shoot topic, feel free to check it out*

And so my posts aren't off-topic if they are read charitably. The initial question was 'how seriously should I take rankings?' and people have discussed how that depends on whether you are interested in practice or in research. There was then some discussion over different kinds of interests people might have in figuring out where would be best for them to go and how well the current system measures that.
 
Top