Advice for a College Sophomore, Please?

[therapist89]

Hello all,

I am a college sophomore at a pretty highly-ranked public university in the states. I've decided that I want to pursue a Clinical Psych degree, but I've been feeling a little anxious because of how competitive the field is. I was wondering, if anyone had the time or kindness, if I could receive some advice from people who know more about the field.

I want to research eating disorders, and right now I have fifteen potential faculty members from universities from across the nation. I just started this semester as an RA in an eating behavior lab, and I am spearheading my own project this summer, and then I will do an honors thesis the following year. Hopefully I will have one publication by the time I apply, but if not I will have at least some solid research experience. Right now I have a 3.7 GPA, which will probably stay within the 3.7-3.8 range, and I will start studying for the GRE soon. In terms of clinical experience, I have two jobs that involve working with people one-on-one, and I am very involved in mental health awareness on campus; I know that's not direct clinical experience, but I need the money help pay for tuition/loans and I don't have a car to get off-campus.

I know that was a lot, but basically, any advice for someone who wants to pursue a Clinical Psych Ph.D. focused on eating disorders? I do not have access to an ED population, but I am working with restrained eating, which hopefully shows some relevance. What more should I be doing? How can I improve myself to get on the same level to other undergraduates who have access to ED populations or are naturally gifted researchers? Final question: will being male help at all in terms of admission (even if it shouldn't)?

Thank you for your time in advance.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[A Blue Duck]

Final question: will being male help at all in terms of admission (even if it shouldn't)?

Thank you for your time in advance.

Hahaha. hahahahaha.

Sorry but I actually laughed out loud when I read that and wanted to express it.

No. No it won't. Just because the field is primarily made-up of women does not mean there is any push to get more men involved. If anything, you may have a harder time; not saying there is any reverse discrimination, but I could see the novelty operating against rather than for you.

Basically, there are many male graduate students and professors (can't name any though maybe others can help out- not my field) who study eating disorder, but their path wasn't any easier than it was for women. Gender shouldn't, and typically does not matter when it comes to getting into these programs. The best parts of any application are entirely gender neutral.

I'll also say that you seem completely on track. Beginning study for the GRE seems a bit early; maybe just consider reading some classic literature as that is the real way to increase your vocab...then go hard on flashcards and other direct study materials at a closer date. Access to ED populations is not entirely necessary...but...is there a university hospital with an inpatient unit you could shadow? Any outpatient clinics in the area? The very best way to interact, however, is in a research setting...but even your work with subclinical populations is excellent for your CV.

Lastly a piece of advice. Since you seem so proactive, you are probably wanting to apply straight out of undergrad. Now HERE is where you will face some REAL discrimination! Undergrad applicants are at such a disadvantage in the process. It makes sense too. 10 hours of working in a lab per week doing typical RA tasks just cannot compare to a pot-graduate full-time lab manager or RA position.

The main point is this. You may very well end up getting into a program out of undergrad...it is not impossible. But this is the next 5 years of your life. If post-graduate work guaranteed you the same and likely better program placement, does it not make sense to take that additional year or 2 and gain that experience necessary to get into the mid-top tier programs?

I realize you didn't ask for all of this info and almost none has been ED specific but take and leave what you will.

 

[A Blue Duck]

Also, what do you mean by "naturally gifted researchers?"

That, imho, is a red-flag mindset.

 

[cara susanna]

I'm not an ED person but my program is becoming extremely strong in that area and I've seen the admissions process a few times now. It does seem that because ED is such a niche area, there tend to be a lot of amazing applicants. The ones who got admitted to my program last year had worked in very high profile labs, for instance (most were fresh out of undergrad, too). I think that your plan sounds like the best that you can do. The only other thing is that because EDs is such a niche area it's easier to network so you could maybe try doing that. For instance, you could consider attending the Academy for Eating Disorders conference.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

From what you have indicated in your profile above it seems that you would be competitive. Numbers come into play for selection and entrance into a program so it may be good to apply broadly to a number of programs.

 

[cara susanna]

... Really?

 

[WisNeuro]

Contrary to unsupported views of other on here, I have never heard of and have never seen any data supporting bias against males in the mental health field. On the contrary, the empirical data would suggest that even in female dominated fields, men still receive privilege above and beyond their ability level. There is data here, feel free to read it, please don't listen to certain posters who continuously post inaccurate and blatantly false information.

*Edit, if this seems out of place, it is because the offending post was edited to remove inaccurate information.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I can add some anecdotal evidence to support WisNeuro's post. In our program it was in fact an advantage to be male. We had a number of labs which tended to draw women (DV, ED) and so we only had 2-4 men in our whole program at any one time. The faculty didn't like the imbalance, so they made offers to men who were much weaker candidates than some women that didn't get offers. The worst part is that these weaker applicants often had multiple offers and so they didn't always choose us. And at least two who got in and attended did end up crashing and burning.

I joked that we were the only place where there was affirmative action for white men!

 

[A Blue Duck]

The faculty didn't like the imbalance, so they made offers to men who were much weaker candidates than some women that didn't get offers.

Isn't that, uh, illegal?

 

[WisNeuro]

Isn't that, uh, illegal?

Well, you could argue for gender discrimination, but you'd have to prove it. Which, in grad school admissions may be hard to do at times given a fairly subjective nature of rating after minimum bars are met.

 

[therapist89]

Thanks for all the replies everyone! I did not mean to offend or cause discord because of my last question; as someone who is really into feminism, I was curious how Psych admission works in comparison to other fields (though the debate is intriguing in general).

More in terms of my personal concern, I was wondering how much "knowing people" factors into admissions. I work a lot in order to cover tuition and other things, so I do not know if I can really afford to go any super far away conferences before I graduate (at least, conferences that are eating disorder specific - they seem really far away). And I feel like the undergrads at universities with eating disorder labs have a huge leg-up because they can work with the population. If I work hard enough, could my efforts themselves hopefully compensate in that regard?

 

[A Blue Duck]

Networking is always going to be important-it is not just for business students. As you said, it will certainly offer some individuals a leg-up during admissions. Academic lineage is a big deal, and professors often take recommendations from former students or colleagues with more seriousness than from those they do not know or feel are less important in the field. However, while in some specific situations you may be out of luck, any POI worth working for will select the best candidate regardless of lab affiliation, gender, or whatever other irrelevant variable you can dream up.

It should be noted that in some laboratories and fields there are established models and experimental methodologies in place, and so familiarity with those models can give a POI a very legitimate reason for selecting one applicant over another. As for how this may or may not apply for the eating disorders field, I do not know.

Well, you could argue for gender discrimination, but you'd have to prove it.

Well I would hope so. We wouldn't want anecdotal accounts and vapid generalization to color the way our imminent applicants view the process.

 

[WisNeuro]

Well I would hope so. We wouldn't want anecdotal accounts and vapid generalization to color the way our imminent applicants view the process.

Indeed, I was speaking more to the difficulty of proving this even if it is blatantly happening. Given small class sizes (5-10) for most programs and a very heterogeneous background, there is so much subjectivity in offers at some point once you've weeded out the obvious chaff. You would essentially need a smoking gun in the form of a department e-mail that comes right out and says it to have a case.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Isn't that, uh, illegal?

Well, my program was a pretty messed up place. I didn't say that's how it should be done. Just adding my experiences, which supported the research cited by Wisneuro, to the mix.

 

[psychRA]

While we wouldn't want to generalize one person's experiences to an entire field, I suspect that many of us have similar observations to share. Combined, those individual experiences and observations are meaningful. I would agree that males definitely have an advantage in this field, especially within areas that are typically (even more) commonly pursued by women, such as eating disorders, domestic violence, sexual assault, child psychology, etc.

In my graduate program, one POI was known for prioritizing male applicants for interviews even when there were more qualified female applicants in the pool. On a program level, there was one year when the faculty (plus student representatives, so I was in the room to see this happen) got together to discuss their top choices to extend offers, and realized that there weren't any males near the top of anyone's list. They spent time discussing whether anyone might be wiling to move a male interviewee up to the top of their list so that we could avoid having an all-female cohort for that year. Ultimately no one was willing to do that, but had there been a male applicant who was the second choice for a lab (versus the fourth or fifth choice), that applicant would have been extended the first offer because they were male. In my internship program as well as the internship program at my posdoc site, there has been extensive discussion of ways to increase the chances of having at least one male match to the internship cohort without blatantly moving them up the final rank list. None of this has ever been discussed via email or in writing, but it's a common enough subject that it comes up every year during staff meetings.

So yes, it's just my experience here, but I've seen it in many several different settings over the years. It isn't anything that you could prove in court, but it happens. And I don't think it's necessarily malevolent, either. We want patients to have the option to see male psychologists, and we want to have male representation in the field. It's important to have different perspectives of all types (sex, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.) in any scientific discipline. I think the tricky part is figuring out how to encourage this in a way that's also fair. Honestly, I would have understood if my grad department had decided to prioritize a (hypothetical) second-choice male applicant that year. Once you've narrowed the applicant pool down to 5 interviewees, and they've all done well at the interview, you're going to end up with a qualified grad student regardless of which person you choose - the distinction between your first and second choices is probably negligible. However, if a POI decides to prioritize a substantially less qualified applicant on the basis of demographics, I think it's more problematic.

 

[A Blue Duck]

On a program level, there was one year when the faculty (plus student representatives, so I was in the room to see this happen) got together to discuss their top choices to extend offers, and realized that there weren't any males near the top of anyone's list. They spent time discussing whether anyone might be wiling to move a male interviewee up to the top of their list so that we could avoid having an all-female cohort for that year. Ultimately no one was willing to do that, but had there been a male applicant who was the second choice for a lab (versus the fourth or fifth choice), that applicant would have been extended the first offer because they were male. .

As said previously, the admissions process is not objective. It may be that your faculty and colleagues were concerned, then, that there was bias in the selection of top candidates. That is, there is a distinction between objectively weaker male candidates being put ahead of objectively better female candidates (illegal, gender discrimination, male advantage, etc.), and subjectively weaker males being brought up relative to subjectively stronger female candidates (not gender discrimination).

Anecdotal accounts typically do not offer enough information to differentiate between these two possibilities.

 

[psychRA]

As said previously, the admissions process is not objective. It may be that your faculty and colleagues were concerned, then, that there was bias in the selection of top candidates. That is, there is a distinction between objectively weaker male candidates being put ahead of objectively better female candidates (illegal, gender discrimination, male advantage, etc.), and subjectively weaker males being brought up relative to subjectively stronger female candidates (not gender discrimination).

Anecdotal accounts typically do not offer enough information to differentiate between these two possibilities.

As I said, anecdotal accounts may not be sufficient to draw firm conclusions, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss multiple anecdotal accounts that paint a similar picture. At the very least, they indicate that a similar process is occuring at multiple programs, even if it's not a universal truth.

As for the experiences that I mentioned, I was involved in all of those meetings with various faculty, and I am confident about my assessment of the discussions that I witnessed. The concern was NOT about bias in the selection of the top candidates. The concern was very explicitly and clearly centered around "Now that we've finished interviews, how can we reorder our rankings so that we get at least one male in the cohort?" In some cases, faculty suggested that objectively weaker male candidates should be prioritized over objectively stronger female candidates in order to meet this goal.

 

[therapist89]

Hm okay, thanks for the responses everyone! Hopefully I can work hard enough to earn a position at a program based on my merit alone.

Last question: aside from accomplishing an intense amount of research, solidifying high GPA/GRE scores, and getting great teacher rec letters, is there anything you would recommend a sophomore (so, someone who still has a decent amount of time left in undergrad) to accomplish to bolster their chances of admission to a clinical Psych Ph.D. program?

 

[A Blue Duck]

The differentiating factors with most impact will primarily fall into that, "accomplishing an intense amount of research" category. Focus on your personal role in the research. Getting into a position within a lab where you are working at the "tips" of the research chain is crucial. That is, in project development, data analysis, and publication, as opposed to the typical RA tasks of participant running, data entry and processing. This will likely require working your way up, but worth it as these experiences are the meat of what you want to be talking about come interview time.

The importance of enough familiarity with the literature to discuss research ideas that build on past work while filling a genuine need of knowledge cannot be understated. The lack of tolerance for journal articles among undergrads is pervasive, mainly because the best way to understand scientific writing is to read more of it.