"R1 institution"

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_I_university

I hear the term a lot and I had some vague idea as to what it meant (confers some elite status to a university is the way I understood it), was surpised to find out apparently the term is considered "no longer valid." The accepted term (with apparently somewhat different criteria) is "Doctoral/research universities-extensive".

Somehow doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as "R1".

Anyways, I have no point to my post. I just thought that was interesting.

Originally Posted by JeyRo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_I_university

I hear the term a lot and I had some vague idea as to what it meant (confers some elite status to a university is the way I understood it), was surpised to find out apparently the term is considered "no longer valid." The accepted term (with apparently somewhat different criteria) is "Doctoral/research universities-extensive".

Somehow doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as "R1".

Anyways, I have no point to my post. I just thought that was interesting.

Yeah, I noticed this maybe a month or two back as well. My guess is that people stick with R1 for the reason you listed (it's much, much easier to say than the newly-"approved" term).

I think we often use it to identify which programs are the most research intense because some applicants want to identify programs that offer a Ph.D. with a more balanced approach, when the ones with the highest profiles are unsurprisingly the "R1" schools

We could probably just point to this list

http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/...p?page=members

And say any Ph.D. program not on that list is likely more "balanced" between clinical / research than the research intensive clinical science programs. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by roubs

I think we often use it to identify which programs are the most research intense because some applicants want to identify programs that offer a Ph.D. with a more balanced approach, when the ones with the highest profiles are unsurprisingly the "R1" schools

We could probably just point to this list

http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/...p?page=members

And say any Ph.D. program not on that list is likely more "balanced" between clinical / research than the research intensive clinical science programs. Thoughts?

That's a great place to start, although to avoid confusion and remain as accurate as possible, maybe we should just start referring to the more research-heavy programs by saying "APCS members" rather than "R1 institutions." After all, there are some R1 schools that aren't APCS members and/or that offer more of a 50/50 research/clinical split.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

That's a great place to start, although to avoid confusion and remain as accurate as possible, maybe we should just start referring to the more research-heavy programs by saying "APCS members" rather than "R1 institutions." After all, there are some R1 schools that aren't APCS members and/or that offer more of a 50/50 research/clinical split.

Yep, agree that APCS members is more accurate. I also notice a few APCS member programs where the university as a whole isn't listed as "Very heavy" research emphasis by Carnegie (which seems to be the modern day R1?)

Originally Posted by roubs

Yep, agree that APCS members is more accurate. I also notice a few APCS member programs where the university as a whole isn't listed as "Very heavy" research emphasis by Carnegie (which seems to be the modern day R1?)

Also very true, good point. I think the "very heavy"/R1 descriptor can still certainly be useful, as it may speak to the graduate culture of the university as a whole, and/or to the ability of students to attend things like cross-disciplinary grant writing workshops. But at the same time, as we've pointed out, R1 status doesn't necessarily equate to a research-heavy psych department, just like a research-heavy psych department can occur outside of R1 programs.

Originally Posted by roubs

I think we often use it to identify which programs are the most research intense because some applicants want to identify programs that offer a Ph.D. with a more balanced approach, when the ones with the highest profiles are unsurprisingly the "R1" schools

We could probably just point to this list

http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/...p?page=members

And say any Ph.D. program not on that list is likely more "balanced" between clinical / research than the research intensive clinical science programs. Thoughts?

With a few notable exceptions, I guess. I'm shocked that University of Michigan isn't on that list. I consider them more research heavy than several of the schools that are on there. Texas A&M as well.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

With a few notable exceptions, I guess. I'm shocked that University of Michigan isn't on that list. I consider them more research heavy than several of the schools that are on there. Texas A&M as well.

Actually U Mich didn't shift to a "clinical science" model until very recently, so I am not too surprised about them. Anecdotally, I'd heard that their clinical area (in contrast to the rest of the department) actually had a VERY mediocre reputation for quite some time according to a number of different sources - though one that seems to be significantly improving in recent times (probably in part facilitated by the shift to a clinical science model). Seems they are moving in that direction though and given the reputation of the university as a whole and the resources available there, I would not be surprised in the slightest to see them joining the ranks of Academy programs in the near future.

One precaution regarding use of APCS - its unclear exactly what the ongoing status of the Academy will be, and to what degree this will be supplanted by the PCSAS accreditation system. Just one important consideration.

Originally Posted by roubs

I think we often use it to identify which programs are the most research intense because some applicants want to identify programs that offer a Ph.D. with a more balanced approach, when the ones with the highest profiles are unsurprisingly the "R1" schools

We could probably just point to this list

http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/...p?page=members

And say any Ph.D. program not on that list is likely more "balanced" between clinical / research than the research intensive clinical science programs. Thoughts?

I find it interesting that the University of Toronto is on that list as they do not have a clinical psychology PhD.

Originally Posted by deliciousgoose

I find it interesting that the University of Toronto is on that list as they do not have a clinical psychology PhD.

This is for their Clinical Research Extension Program. It's not APA/CPA accredited, but some of their students do go on to become registered psychologists.

Originally Posted by thewesternsky

This is for their Clinical Research Extension Program. It's not APA/CPA accredited, but some of their students do go on to become registered psychologists.

I know about CLEX but if it's not CPA/APA accredited and isn't a clinical psychology program, it seems that it shouldn't be grouped with clinical psychology PhDs.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

Actually U Mich didn't shift to a "clinical science" model until very recently, so I am not too surprised about them.

I am surprised that they were anything but a research-focused training program. I know a couple of current students there, and they slant quite heavily to the research side of things. I hope they consider joining the APCS, as similar R1 institutions (Harvard, UCLA, etc) are currently pursuing membership.

Originally Posted by deliciousgoose

I know about CLEX but if it's not CPA/APA accredited and isn't a clinical psychology program, it seems that it shouldn't be grouped with clinical psychology PhDs.

I agree, but apparently the Academy does not (because UT/CLEX is a member).