Age of psych grad students

[JockNerd]

Hi, all.
I was wondering if anyone else perceives that psych grad students often start grad school much earlier than grad students in other disciplines. I'm not sure if this is just my perception or if this seems to be a trend noticed by others too. I'm asking because I'm noticing that some folks interviewing for my program now seem really young to me (many are 21ish; they enter with AP credits from high school and blow through their bachelor's in 3 years), and also seem to be less well-rounded than I'd like (little to no work experience, few courses outside of psych, very little exposure to physical sciences, weak writing skills, etc.).

Anyone else perceive this trend, or feel like it has negative implications?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

There's been a trend over the past two or three years at our program to have more applicants applying straight out of undergrad. Before that, though, I would say that the average age of our students was at or above that in other disciplines; many people who were here when I began (way back when) started the program in their mid- to late-twenties and finished in their early-thirties.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I definitely think it is a drawback to go straight through from undergrad to grad school, as there are few if any possibilities to really gain perspective/experience outside of the academic bubble.

 

[psychd]

...

 

[kapinkkidowski]

I guess I can't speak to a trend; but this year at my program I only met one interviewee who was straight out of undergrad (and it was generally considered as unusual), although there were a couple more only 1 year out. In my program I guess that generally in the past few years people have been somewhere between 23-30 when starting, with the average being 24-26. I don't know a single student currently in the program who came in without at least a year or two of experience outside of undergrad.

 

[psychmama]

I think grad programs emphasizing research especially skew younger; PsyD and more practice-oriented PhD programs tend to get more older students with greater life experience.

I can't speak for others, but I went into psychology in my 40s, which of course is quite old. Oddly, I think it worked out perfectly because I have so many other experiences "beyond the bubble" of academia. This has helped me immensely in understanding and relating to patients and colleagues.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind having some of those years back so I'd have more years to reach my potential (financial and otherwise) as a psychologist.

 

[AryaStark]

A disclaimer: I am currently a 24-year-old second year graduate student who went straight from undergrad to grad school. I have conducted tons of my own research, gotten almost perfect grades, and am equal to all my (older) cohort members in terms my clinical skills.

I absolutely hate when people make blanket generalizations about individuals who went straight from undergrad to grad school. Everyone is entitled to do what they wish, and I don't think either one (taking time off or going straight to grad school) is more appropriate than the other. It really depends on the individual, so what follows is my response to you, a person who seems to have a chip on his/her shoulder about those of us that COULD get into grad school straight from undergrad due to our hard work and sufficient experience that we garnered NOT going out and partying, NOT saying a B was ok, and those of us who SOUGHT OUT extra research experience all the while maintaining a perfect GPA.

Anyway, I could not disagree with your post more. It is appropriate to say that YOU needed to take time off, but I think implying to other people that a program is of lesser quality because they want to take students straight from undergrad is rather judgmental. I am your age right now, I assume we graduated the same year; however I would argue that because I came straight from undergrad does not mean I am any less mature than you are. I would argue that perhaps I am a little more mature, as I have seen through 2 years of experience, that both types of students are equal in their abilities, professionalism, and interests. There are individual differences with everything, and making generalizations like that does not showcase this "maturity" you have gotten in your 2 years off. Does taking such a short amount of time off REALLY give you significant amount of life experience? Yes, maybe if you took 5-10 years off, sure. But 1.5/2? Are you all that different from a 22 year old? I don't get it. I'm not buying it.

EVERYONE struggles with grad school, 22 year olds, 30 year olds, 35 year olds. You name it, grad school sucks. Anecdotally, I actually have noticed that my friends who have taken time off (although enjoyed having some time away from academia) tend to have a more difficult time dealing with the stressors of school, research, clinical work, and living on the small stipend. Of course if you are no longer doing things you may get rusty, and living on 30-40k a year as a research assistant is a lot different than living on 13k a year as a grad student. I never knew what it was like to live the 30k a year lifestyle, and thus I experience a lot less disappointment and stress.

You said yourself you are APPLYING, that does not mean that you have any idea what being in graduate school is even about—it is not about how much time you took off, it is about how much you can handle as an individual. Regardless of if you have worked in a lab with grad students, or you talk to people on SDN-- graduate school kicks you in the ass, and there is aboslutely nothing that can prepare you for that.

In addition, hearing from my adviser this cycle, I think not having overly specific research interests can be a positive (at least in my program it is seen that way) to some professors. Some faculty members prefer to have students whom they can mold, who will likely be willing to help with other's research, and who are open to new ideas. Again, I'm not buying your assertions.

Perhaps your disappointment does not truly stem from younger students being considered, but the fact that they are just as qualified and have just as much experience as you do.

I've interviewed at a few schools now and I have definitely noticed a trend of younger applicants than I expected. I'm 24 and at one place I interviewed I felt like I was one of the oldest applicants there. For me, this changes my perception of a program in a pretty negative way. At the university that I went to all of the clinical psych grad students I knew took at least 1 year off in between undergrad and grad school. I think that taking time off is an incredibly important step of the process, for both experience and maturity. Thinking about some of the things that clinical psych programs entail specifically (things like meeting with sometimes difficult, upsetting clients), I really do not see how a 21 or even 22 year old, no matter how hard working and intelligent, has gained enough life experience to be mature enough to deal with the more difficult situations. I also noticed a trend of these younger students not really understanding research and not having had the time to develop their research interests specifically or in depth enough (which then made me seriously question how they landed the interview in the first place).

And on top of that, psychologists fight a constant battle with being seen as a legitimate scientific field by other fields as we all likely know well, and I really don't see programs taking lots of younger students helping our reputation at all. Anyway, I guess I was just pretty disappointed that I saw so many younger students and applicants. I have worked really hard the past few years gain the preparation, experience and maturity I know I needed for grad school and I've heard so much about how competitive it is so I thought my experience wasn't even going to be enough. Now I honestly think that even at schools that are not that research oriented, the bar needs to be raised in terms of experience and maturity. Ha, ok end of rant!

 

[O Gurl]

I've interviewed at a few schools now and I have definitely noticed a trend of younger applicants than I expected. I'm 24 and at one place I interviewed I felt like I was one of the oldest applicants there. For me, this changes my perception of a program in a pretty negative way. At the university that I went to all of the clinical psych grad students I knew took at least 1 year off in between undergrad and grad school. I think that taking time off is an incredibly important step of the process, for both experience and maturity. Thinking about some of the things that clinical psych programs entail specifically (things like meeting with sometimes difficult, upsetting clients), I really do not see how a 21 or even 22 year old, no matter how hard working and intelligent, has gained enough life experience to be mature enough to deal with the more difficult situations. I also noticed a trend of these younger students not really understanding research and not having had the time to develop their research interests specifically or in depth enough (which then made me seriously question how they landed the interview in the first place).

As a person who went directly from undergrad into a clinical psych PhD program, I find many of your arguments to be shortsighted and not well justified. I was fortunate to have strong mentorship during undergrad and was guided to get involved in research (junior exploratory project and senior honor's project); volunteer for a crisis hot-line; maintain a stellar GPA; and perform well on the GRE. I saw no reason to take time off. It is not like I could have gotten direct clinical experience. Can you imagine a psychologist putting his/her license on the line to supervise someone who hopes to go to grad school one day? So what would I have done with that extra year or two or three? Worked as an RA? I already had some research exposure. The only benefit would have been to gain pubs, which is great.. but also what grad school is for. I could have pursued a master's but my academic history already showed I was capable of grad-level coursework.

I am not writing this to toot my horn or any other trainee's that did not take time off. I am sharing this only to demonstrate that if one plans well, works hard, and receives proper guidance, they can adequately prepare to enter a doctoral program without taking time off. Perhaps that is how the youngsters that you encountered "landed the interview."

And on top of that, psychologists fight a constant battle with being seen as a legitimate scientific field by other fields as we all likely know well, and I really don't see programs taking lots of younger students helping our reputation at all. Anyway, I guess I was just pretty disappointed that I saw so many younger students and applicants. I have worked really hard the past few years gain the preparation, experience and maturity I know I needed for grad schooland I've heard so much about how competitive it is so I thought my experience wasn't even going to be enough. Now I honestly think that even at schools that are not that research oriented, the bar needs to be raised in terms of experience and maturity. Ha, ok end of rant!

Let's be honest here. Many who take time off do so because they have to in order to shore up their credentials. I would argue that a person who is able to put forth a strong application right out of undergrad must have some sense of maturity, motivation, or focus that is quite commendable. And how would you ascertain maturity anyhow? Are you proposing some arbitrary age limit or max number of years of work experience before someone spends 6 years in pursuit of a PhD?

 

[AryaStark]

I could NOT agree more.

As a person who went directly from undergrad into a clinical psych PhD program, I find many of your arguments to be shortsighted and not well justified. I was fortunate to have strong mentorship during undergrad and was guided to get involved in research (junior exploratory project and senior honor's project); volunteer for a crisis hot-line; maintain a stellar GPA; and perform well on the GRE. I saw no reason to take time off. It is not like I could have gotten direct clinical experience. Can you imagine a psychologist putting his/her license on the line to supervise someone who hopes to go to grad school one day? So what would I have done with that extra year or two or three? Worked as an RA? I already had some research exposure. The only benefit would have been to gain pubs, which is great.. but also what grad school is for. I could have pursued a master's but my academic history already showed I was capable of grad-level coursework.

I am not writing this to toot my horn or any other trainee's that did not take time off. I am sharing this only to demonstrate that if one plans well, works hard, and receives proper guidance, they can adequately prepare to enter a doctoral program without taking time off. Perhaps that is how the youngsters that you encountered "landed the interview."



Let's be honest here. Many who take time off do so because they have to in order to shore up their credentials. I would argue that a person who is able to put forth a strong application right out of undergrad must have some sense of maturity, motivation, or focus that is quite commendable. And how would you ascertain maturity anyhow? Are you proposing some arbitrary age limit or max number of years of work experience before someone spends 6 years in pursuit of a PhD?

 

[O Gurl]

I definitely think it is a drawback to go straight through from undergrad to grad school, as there are few if any possibilities to really gain perspective/experience outside of the academic bubble.

Such as? Most people who take time off after undergrad do so 1) after not being able to get into a grad program and 2) to work as an RA or pursue a master's, both of which are within the "academic bubble."

Sorry guys, this argument is sounding more like sour-grapes than sound reasoning.

 

[O Gurl]

There are individual differences with everything, and making generalizations like that does not showcase this “maturity” you have gotten in your 2 years off. Does taking such a short amount of time off REALLY give you significant amount of life experience? Yes, maybe if you took 5-10 years off, sure. But 1.5/2? Are you all that different from a 22 year old? I don’t get it. I'm not buying it.

EVERYONE struggles with grad school, 22 year olds, 30 year olds, 35 year olds. You name it, grad school sucks. Anecdotally, I actually have noticed that my friends who have taken time off (although enjoyed having some time away from academia) tend to have a more difficult time dealing with the stressors of school, research, clinical work, and living on the small stipend. Of course if you are no longer doing things you may get rusty, and living on 30-40k a year as a research assistant is a lot different than living on 13k a year as a grad student. I never knew what it was like to live the 30k a year lifestyle, and thus I experience a lot less disappointment and stress.

Perhaps your disappointment does not truly stem from younger students being considered, but the fact that they are just as qualified and have just as much experience as you do.

100% agreement

 

[psychd]

Sorry, did not mean to offend. Thank you OGurl and AryaStark for giving your opinion with both of your experiences, it definitely adds some perspective that I clearly didn't have. I definitely did a lot of generalization, but you did a bit too. Just because I took time off does NOT necessary mean I had bad credentials coming out of undergrad. You both made the assumption that people who take time off NEED to to bolster their app or that I wouldn't have been able to get into grad school right out of undergrad or that I didn't work as hard in undergrad- because I am actually quite sure that I could have and I sure as heck worked my butt off in undergrad. I took time off because I wanted the experience. I had experience in multiple clinical labs as a undergrad, but I decided I wanted a little bit more so I could really decide if this was something I wanted to go into and to develop my interests a bit more.


The maturity gauge is quite arbitrary I will certainly admit and I think I mentioned that because of my own feelings of insecurity that I wouldn't fit in with a class of younger students because they were at slightly different points in their lives (e.g. not trying to move w/ significant others) and maybe didn't seem to know as much about the process. Ironically, this wasn't a mature judgment call I will certainly admit. But I do want to make clear that I did not make that assumption because I have chip on my shoulder because I COULDN'T make it into grad school right from undergrad, that is also an incorrect assumption.

I guess I am really seeing that this is a personal decision- I clearly based my assumptions off of my experience, and I apologize again if I offended anyone, but I think it was good to get it out there so someone could really demonstrate how I was wrong

 

[JockNerd]

Some folks seem to be making some assumptions about my original post, or extending what I said far past anything I'd posted.

If you read my post, I clearly didn't say that younger students are unqualified. What I DID say was that I perceived a trend toward younger and younger applicants within my program, and that this seemed to me to be associated with a related decline in the general abilities of many of the applicants. Trend. General. Nothing about specific individuals, many of whom may be very qualified.

The other side of this, in relation to the point about younger students getting to be "qualified," is what I think is a mistaken idea about what it means to be qualified. I think that given the competitiveness of grad school applications many younger students try very hard to do the things they're supposed to do to get in with little reflection on the meaning or underlying ideas. A specific manifestation might be a student who "knows" how to run a MANOVA, and did so for her/his senior thesis, but fails to grasp the underlying statistical process or assumptions (statistical and conceptual) of the test. I think some students are racking up such "qualifications" at the cost of failing to understand underlying principles as they make an effort to rocket through their degrees.

It's not that I'd prefer a candidate with life experience (which I think is a vague and irrational construct); what I would prefer is an understanding of the underlying process of research and clinical work, the philosophy of science, the interconnectedness of our field with other fields, and the realities that people outside of academia face. I think that is lost in the education of many recent young graduates as they try to check off the boxes for the experiences they need so that they can apply to grad school as quickly as possible.

 

[Psychology 76]

A disclaimer: I am currently a 24-year-old second year graduate student who went straight from undergrad to grad school. I have conducted tons of my own research, gotten almost perfect grades, and am equal to all my (older) cohort members in terms my clinical skills.

I absolutely hate when people make blanket generalizations about individuals who went straight from undergrad to grad school. Everyone is entitled to do what they wish, and I don't think either one (taking time off or going straight to grad school) is more appropriate than the other. It really depends on the individual, so what follows is my response to you, a person who seems to have a chip on his/her shoulder about those of us that COULD get into grad school straight from undergrad due to our hard work and sufficient experience that we garnered NOT going out and partying, NOT saying a B was ok, and those of us who SOUGHT OUT extra research experience all the while maintaining a perfect GPA.

Anyway, I could not disagree with your post more. It is appropriate to say that YOU needed to take time off, but I think implying to other people that a program is of lesser quality because they want to take students straight from undergrad is rather judgmental. I am your age right now, I assume we graduated the same year; however I would argue that because I came straight from undergrad does not mean I am any less mature than you are. I would argue that perhaps I am a little more mature, as I have seen through 2 years of experience, that both types of students are equal in their abilities, professionalism, and interests. There are individual differences with everything, and making generalizations like that does not showcase this “maturity” you have gotten in your 2 years off. Does taking such a short amount of time off REALLY give you significant amount of life experience? Yes, maybe if you took 5-10 years off, sure. But 1.5/2? Are you all that different from a 22 year old? I don’t get it. I'm not buying it.

EVERYONE struggles with grad school, 22 year olds, 30 year olds, 35 year olds. You name it, grad school sucks. Anecdotally, I actually have noticed that my friends who have taken time off (although enjoyed having some time away from academia) tend to have a more difficult time dealing with the stressors of school, research, clinical work, and living on the small stipend. Of course if you are no longer doing things you may get rusty, and living on 30-40k a year as a research assistant is a lot different than living on 13k a year as a grad student. I never knew what it was like to live the 30k a year lifestyle, and thus I experience a lot less disappointment and stress.

You said yourself you are APPLYING, that does not mean that you have any idea what being in graduate school is even about—it is not about how much time you took off, it is about how much you can handle as an individual. Regardless of if you have worked in a lab with grad students, or you talk to people on SDN-- graduate school kicks you in the ass, and there is aboslutely nothing that can prepare you for that.

In addition, hearing from my adviser this cycle, I think not having overly specific research interests can be a positive (at least in my program it is seen that way) to some professors. Some faculty members prefer to have students whom they can mold, who will likely be willing to help with other's research, and who are open to new ideas. Again, I'm not buying your assertions.

Perhaps your disappointment does not truly stem from younger students being considered, but the fact that they are just as qualified and have just as much experience as you do.

Thank you so much for this post. I could not agree more or put it more eloquently.

I have not been accepted into grad school strait out of undergrad yet but, I've been invited to two interviews and have been one of the youngest students there.

I hate the argument "more time off = more maturity = better grad student"
I can't believe some highly educated people can make such a rash generalization. I've been working various jobs non-stop since I was 15 and I've worked in several labs and had multiple internships. I did as much as I could during my undergrad years so I wouldn't have to take any time off. I've met plenty of grad students who have taken time off but are no more mature than a senior in high school. It's annoying that people who go from undergrad strait to grad have this unnecessary chip on their shoulder.

 

[psybee]

Such as? Most people who take time off after undergrad do so 1) after not being able to get into a grad program and 2) to work as an RA or pursue a master's, both of which are within the "academic bubble."

Sorry guys, this argument is sounding more like sour-grapes than sound reasoning.

some of us had an entire other life before grad school--it's not "taking time off", it's having been alive while not studying psychology at an academic institution, being a person outside of higher ed. i have tons of extremely talented younger colleagues at my school, and the differences between people in terms of clinical or research skills often has most to do with the broader personality of the individual than if they are 23 or 26, but, broadly, if you consider prior research experience helpful in your research work now (even if it was in a very different area), academic leaning as helpful in being in academia now, lived experience (from which you learned and grew and developed insight) is also meaningful resouce to draw from in any purist in which you have to relate to other people.

 

[roubs]

Uh oh. Anyone else think that whether age at grad school entry affects outcomes is a question that we might want to rely on research to answer instead of getting heated regarding our own personal experiences with the matter? I can think cases that would support either side of this debate.

 

[O Gurl]

some of us had an entire other life before grad school--it's not "taking time off", it's having been alive while not studying psychology at an academic institution, being a person outside of higher ed.

Well then my comment would not apply to you. Like Roubs pointed out, we can all make arguments for our chosen path. There is no one clear trajectory. But, if a person knows that they want to pursue a doctorate in psychology why should they take time out to "mature" or "get more life experience", which more than one person has indicated as necessary? That is the type of argument that I am questioning. Particularly since some people making this argument did not have "an entire other life" in between undergrad and grad school. They took as much time as needed (1-2 years) to get extra experience, extra coursework, or a higher GRE to reapply. In that case, it seems illogical to argue that people who went in only 2 years younger than them are "less mature."

 

[JockNerd]

...But, if a person knows that they want to pursue a doctorate in psychology why should they take time out to "mature" or "get more life experience", which more than one person has indicated as necessary?...

Who said this? I call straw man; clearly saying all students must take time off is not correct, but it's not clear that the related positions that were actually advanced on the thread are not correct by association.

My second post on this thread is a clearer articulation of my perspective on this. It's not necessarily about age, but about the attitude toward their field.

 

[O Gurl]

The other side of this, in relation to the point about younger students getting to be "qualified," is what I think is a mistaken idea about what it means to be qualified. I think that given the competitiveness of grad school applications many younger students try very hard to do the things they're supposed to do to get in with little reflection on the meaning or underlying ideas. A specific manifestation might be a student who "knows" how to run a MANOVA, and did so for her/his senior thesis, but fails to grasp the underlying statistical process or assumptions (statistical and conceptual) of the test. I think some students are racking up such "qualifications" at the cost of failing to understand underlying principles as they make an effort to rocket through their degrees.

That is what graduate level stats and research design courses are for. I am not trying to be coy, but if I was expected to understand the assumptions and theorems behind multivariate statistics before I entered grad school, then I'd have to wonder why my course curriculum included so may stats and design classes. There were others in my cohort who took a year or two after undergrad and worked in a lab, but they were certainly in no position to opt out of these courses. As many of us already know, labs/PIs are well-versed in the stats and designs relevant to their corner of the academic world, and that is likely not an exhaustive list of approaches. This is why we have graduate study to lay the broad foundation that we all need.

It's not that I'd prefer a candidate with life experience (which I think is a vague and irrational construct); what I would prefer is an understanding of the underlying process of research and clinical work, the philosophy of science, the interconnectedness of our field with other fields, and the realities that people outside of academia face. I think that is lost in the education of many recent young graduates as they try to check off the boxes for the experiences they need so that they can apply to grad school as quickly as possible.

Do you think that people applying out of undergrad are not expected to have some knowledge of these issues? I would trust that a solid program would want to see some evidence of understanding of the science and the field before admitting anyone, regardless of age.

I understand that your original post was speaking of trends at your particular institution, which I am obviously in no position to argue against. But I am also getting the impression from the points raised above that you are expecting to see a damn-near fully-formed psychologist at the interview to get into a PhD program while what you are describing is what I would be looking for at an internship interview.

 

[cara susanna]

So what if they don't fully know the underlying assumptions of ANOVA? That's what you learn in graduate school. You're not supposed to come in knowing everything.

Also, research has shown that age has no association with improved clinical outcomes or therapeutic alliance (though experience did affect CBT outcomes with depressed patients).

So says this 23-year-old grad student

 

[O Gurl]

Who said this? I call straw man; clearly saying all students must take time off is not correct, but it's not clear that the related positions that were actually advanced on the thread are not correct by association.

Scroll up and read the comments from T4C and psychd that I directly responded to. If I was talking about you, you would have been quoted.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

My own take on the topic at hand: I definitely believe that time working away from academia (whether that be as an undergraduate, between undergrad and grad school, or at some other point) can be beneficial for helping an individual to gain a different perspective on themselves, their clients, their co-workers, and the world as a whole. Do I feel it's necessary to have such experience in order to be a competent or talented clinician? Not at all. Some people are ready for the field straight out of undergrad and some aren't. That's what I've personally noticed in my (extended) period of graduate training, anyway.

I view having worked outside of psychology (and academia as a whole) in much the same way I do the experience of studying abroad--it's a great eye-opener and can help you appreciate various parts of yourself and your world in a different light, but it's not a necessary or sufficient component of maturity, education or training.

 

[AryaStark]

oh snap.


I think we can all just agree that anecdotally we have known people who are successful coming from both perspectives. If taking time off is what YOU need to do then do it. If you can get into a program straight to undergrad and that's what YOU want to do, do it. I think the truth is: everyone takes time off for different reasons: wanted to "live" a little, wanted more experience, wanted to improve grades, gres, etc., had a different career.However, I think my main point, as well as OG's, is that if an individual is both mentally and credentially ready for graduate school, why can't they go? How does having younger students discredit our profession? You could make the arguement that older students may be too set in their ways or something ridiculous like that!

I just find it a little insulting when someone who is my own age, who is only just applying to programs and has not lived the life yet, makes any assumptions about my (or other students like me) abilities as a clinician or a researcher. Perhaps not everyone is ready to go to graduate school straight from undergrad; however as a graduate student, I don't give a crud how old someone is. Once they come to interview, it's the whole package, not the age. Are they someone who will work hard? Are they someone who has a similar research interest to the lab? Are they someone I could see myself getting along with? Are they someone I think I can trust to run my study? If the person is 22 years old, I don't care. I can't stress it enough- it's about you as a person, and at the point of interview, it's not even about your credentials anymore. I don't even LOOK at ages when I go through applications for students, and same goes for the other labs at my program. What does that tell us then if so many younger students are good enough to be invited (without even looking at their age)? Perhaps the field is moving in a different direction, and people are receiving better mentoring, seeking out better opportunities, and realizing that if you WANT to go straight from undergrad, you're going to have to work your butt off.

In addition, I again ask: you are 24. You were concerned you are in a different point in your life than a 22 year old/ won't be able to relate to them. Honestly, how different of a life do you have now than you did 2 years ago? All of my greatest friends in grad school are at least 3 years my senior. First year students who came straight from undergrad are already married. I just don't see how you can make these broad assumptions about people when clinical psychology programs foster understanding of individual differences. WTF?

 

[JockNerd]

I'm not expecting to see a fully-formed psychologist at interview, and I don't think my postings should be understood to say I was contending that.

What I DO want to see at interview is a budding scientific thinker, and not a technician. The MANOVA example was an *example* of what the difference might look like. As in, applicants seem to be obsessed with achieving technical competence at the cost losing sight of understanding the process of research. I'm not sure why there's a focus on that specific example over the message of what I was saying.

The cost, as I see it, is that it becomes impossible to judge potential when the applicant is all content and no process. So they know how to perform an analysis in spss--so what? That be learned with a brief tutorial and some practice. My point is that a focus on the process of science and understanding the philosophy of science seems to me to be missing in many applicants. Knowing whether they grasp the underlying process of research (what I meant by saying statistical and conceptual assumptions--a point that I do not see as being possible to miss, except by choice) is more important to me. I'm willing to consider that I'm suffering from some hindsight bias, but it really does seem to me as though the younger turbo-undergrads are missing this.

As for age and therapy outcomes--citation? I'd prefer to see data from a VA or such on this, as the easy college CC data may not be representative--the clients are almost all 18-22, and hence younger than even the young therapists.

 

[JockNerd]

...I think my main point, as well as OG's, is that if an individual is both mentally and credentially ready for graduate school, why can't they go?...

This is the crux of my position that others seem to be reading as "get off my lawn you youngsters!"; I think that many (obviously not ALL...) of the recent grads are technically competent but have little experience in scientific thinking (which I would contend is a harder process than technical competence). I also think it is impossible the judge the merits of an applicant when they have demonstrated technical competence but not scientific acumen. My problem, put fairly simply, is more with the folks who are trying to check off the experiences they "need" to get into grad school and missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Existenz]

they're getting younger everyday, my little cousin just published at age 11

 

[JuniperTree]

they're getting younger everyday, my little cousin just published at age 11

Are you related to Hadley Nagel?

 

[AryaStark]

I totally agree with this comment;however who is to say that only "recent grads" make these mistakes? I don't think that getting a full time RAship or anything of the sort for 2 years will really change anything too drastically. You can get an RAship for 2 years and still only do data entry, having minimal experience conceptualizing or utilizing scientific thinking. I think it is a problem with the profession as a WHOLE that most people applying are checking off this or checking off that, regardless if you are straight from undergrad or taking time off. I think that is seemingly more about laziness or about what type of experiences you are getting. As an undergrad I didn't do data entry or anything like that. I was integral in study conceptualization (using incredible amounts of scientific thinking), data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. Yes- do I think that students who are straight from undergrad who only do data entry may not be 100 percent ready for this? yes. But I think that it is the same from a 26 year old working at some lab who does all the bit** work. Put simply, I would argue that it's not so much about how old you are/where you are in your academic career, but more about the experience that you seek out, and your mentorship.

This is the crux of my position that others seem to be reading as "get off my lawn you youngsters!"; I think that many (obviously not ALL...) of the recent grads are technically competent but have little experience in scientific thinking (which I would contend is a harder process than technical competence). I also think it is impossible the judge the merits of an applicant when they have demonstrated technical competence but not scientific acumen. My problem, put fairly simply, is more with the folks who are trying to check off the experiences they "need" to get into grad school and missing the forest for the trees.

 

[JockNerd]

I totally agree with this comment;however who is to say that only "recent grads" make these mistakes? I don't think that getting a full time RAship or anything of the sort for 2 years will really change anything too drastically. You can get an RAship for 2 years and still only do data entry, having minimal experience conceptualizing or utilizing scientific thinking. I think it is a problem with the profession as a WHOLE that most people applying are checking off this or checking off that, regardless if you are straight from undergrad or taking time off. I think that is seemingly more about laziness or about what type of experiences you are getting. As an undergrad I didn't do data entry or anything like that. I was integral in study conceptualization (using incredible amounts of scientific thinking), data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. Yes- do I think that students who are straight from undergrad who only do data entry may not be 100 percent ready for this? yes. But I think that it is the same from a 26 year old working at some lab who does all the bit** work. Put simply, I would argue that it's not so much about how old you are/where you are in your academic career, but more about the experience that you seek out, and your mentorship.

Hm, ok, I see that. I think that my perceptions may be related to a large number of students at my program who blast through their undergrads in 3 years and apply to grad school at 20 or 21 (applying in after 2.5 years of undergrad). I think that there's going to be a very strong tendency for there to be group differences here--imagine it's a post-hoc test; group a (turbo-undergrads) is not different from group b (normal undergrads), and group b is not different from group c (more relevant experience/training), but a is different from c. I think a piece of that is not necessarily the age per se, but rather the obsession with fast completion, which is probably related to superficial understanding of psychological and the philosophy of science. Older folks may not have the same vice not by magical virtue of their age, but because the fact that they're applying older means that they didn't have that same obsession.

So, now, OBVIOUSLY there will be exceptions. I'm not sure why it's even necessary for me to say that to make myself feel secure from an inevitable but but but... there have been 11 year old wunderkind university professors too--that doesn't mean 11-year-olds can be assumed to be ready to be professors and is all pretty immaterial to the discussion.

 

[O Gurl]

I'm not expecting to see a fully-formed psychologist at interview, and I don't think my postings should be understood to say I was contending that.

What I DO want to see at interview is a budding scientific thinker, and not a technician. The MANOVA example was an *example* of what the difference might look like. As in, applicants seem to be obsessed with achieving technical competence at the cost losing sight of understanding the process of research. I'm not sure why there's a focus on that specific example over the message of what I was saying.

The cost, as I see it, is that it becomes impossible to judge potential when the applicant is all content and no process. So they know how to perform an analysis in spss--so what? That be learned with a brief tutorial and some practice. My point is that a focus on the process of science and understanding the philosophy of science seems to me to be missing in many applicants. Knowing whether they grasp the underlying process of research (what I meant by saying statistical and conceptual assumptions--a point that I do not see as being possible to miss, except by choice) is more important to me. I'm willing to consider that I'm suffering from some hindsight bias, but it really does seem to me as though the younger turbo-undergrads are missing this.

I completely agree that these things are essential to building a solid scientist practitioner. However, much of this development occurs while in grad school. When at the admissions stage you have to look at all components of an applicant. If you have one straight from UG, solid stats, some research experience (mechanical or not), and strong letters of support, then that person has potential. Likewise, if you see an older applicant with decent, but not stellar, academic stats, lab experience and pubs, and maybe even a few years in a non-psychology, but related field, then that person has potential. I would be curious to know how the "turbo-undergrads" are faring in your program. Are they getting weeded out? Taking longer to completion? Having trouble matching? Are your concerns based on their status at interview actually materializing? I'm only asking for your observations.

As for age and therapy outcomes--citation? I'd prefer to see data from a VA or such on this, as the easy college CC data may not be representative--the clients are almost all 18-22, and hence younger than even the young therapists.

I know this was meant for Cara, but I am one of the "turbo" trainees and am currently on internship at a VA and so far, so good. I am doing well in garnering respect from the Veterans, my supervisors, and other professionals I work with (psychiatrists, nurses, attending physicians, etc). I won't even touch the CC comment as that has the potential to turn into a whole other can of worms.

 

[Salience]

Hm, ok, I see that. I think that my perceptions may be related to a large number of students at my program who blast through their undergrads in 3 years and apply to grad school at 20 or 21 (applying in after 2.5 years of undergrad). I think that there's going to be a very strong tendency for there to be group differences here--imagine it's a post-hoc test; group a (turbo-undergrads) is not different from group b (normal undergrads), and group b is not different from group c (more relevant experience/training), but a is different from c. I think a piece of that is not necessarily the age per se, but rather the obsession with fast completion, which is probably related to superficial understanding of psychological and the philosophy of science. Older folks may not have the same vice not by magical virtue of their age, but because the fact that they're applying older means that they didn't have that same obsession.

So, now, OBVIOUSLY there will be exceptions. I'm not sure why it's even necessary for me to say that to make myself feel secure from an inevitable but but but... there have been 11 year old wunderkind university professors too--that doesn't mean 11-year-olds can be assumed to be ready to be professors and is all pretty immaterial to the discussion.

I would be frustrated if there were unexperienced people coming into my lab as well, but from the school I go to, all the undergrads going straight into clinical Ph.D. programs are all part of very rigorous research programs and also taking graduate level statistics (so them not knowing how to run a MANOVA is very hard for me to believe). To be honest, this may be more telling of the selection process your PI is using than younger students in general.

 

[JockNerd]

I would be curious to know how the "turbo-undergrads" are faring in your program.

They're by and large not excelling and not failing, by my knowledge, to my standards. I think being a turbo-undergrad is probably highly associated with being very book-smart, and probably decently associated with actual (though perhaps untapped) genius, so I'm not surprised they generally do fine. I just think they'd do better if they focused more on process and less on content.

I know this was meant for Cara, but I am one of the "turbo" trainees and am currently on internship at a VA and so far, so good. I am doing well in garnering respect from the Veterans, my supervisors, and other professionals I work with (psychiatrists, nurses, attending physicians, etc). I won't even touch the CC comment as that has the potential to turn into a whole other can of worms.

Well, good for you. I'm not aware of the existence of data either way and was just requesting to see it; my own psycinfo search turned up dry for a meta-analysis of therapist age and treatment outcome.

What about my CC comment? Most CC patients are young; nothing revelatory about that.

 

[JockNerd]

this may be more telling of the selection process your PI

*MY* PI picks em just fine, not to put too fine a point on it.

 

[psychd]

oh snap.

However, I think my main point, as well as OG's, is that if an individual is both mentally and credentially ready for graduate school, why can't they go? How does having younger students discredit our profession? You could make the arguement that older students may be too set in their ways or something ridiculous like that!

I just find it a little insulting when someone who is my own age, who is only just applying to programs and has not lived the life yet, makes any assumptions about my (or other students like me) abilities as a clinician or a researcher. Perhaps not everyone is ready to go to graduate school straight from undergrad; however as a graduate student, I don't give a crud how old someone is. Once they come to interview, it's the whole package, not the age. Are they someone who will work hard? Are they someone who has a similar research interest to the lab? Are they someone I could see myself getting along with? Are they someone I think I can trust to run my study? If the person is 22 years old, I don't care. I can't stress it enough- it's about you as a person, and at the point of interview, it's not even about your credentials anymore. I don't even LOOK at ages when I go through applications for students, and same goes for the other labs at my program. What does that tell us then if so many younger students are good enough to be invited (without even looking at their age)? Perhaps the field is moving in a different direction, and people are receiving better mentoring, seeking out better opportunities, and realizing that if you WANT to go straight from undergrad, you're going to have to work your butt off.

In addition, I again ask: you are 24. You were concerned you are in a different point in your life than a 22 year old/ won't be able to relate to them. Honestly, how different of a life do you have now than you did 2 years ago? All of my greatest friends in grad school are at least 3 years my senior. First year students who came straight from undergrad are already married. I just don't see how you can make these broad assumptions about people when clinical psychology programs foster understanding of individual differences. WTF?

Again, I didn't mean to offend, and I think you made many valid points, which directly refuted my earlier assertion and I certainly recognized that. I put an opinion out there, and if I hold this opinion I bet there's a few others out there that may as well, and you now have the chance to refute it. I know personally it's not fun to be judged unfairly, but it has happened to us all at some point, and the best thing to do is increase awareness to reflect the actual reality of the situation.

And I have to be honest that I'm at a fragile point- while I've interviewed at multiple sites, and observed this, I am still unsure at this point if I will be going to school next year (i.e. have not heard back post-interview anywhere yet), and so I am a bit on edge of the possibility of applying next year and being even older that round. But that is another topic.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Such as? Most people who take time off after undergrad do so 1) after not being able to get into a grad program and 2) to work as an RA or pursue a master's, both of which are within the "academic bubble."

Sorry guys, this argument is sounding more like sour-grapes than sound reasoning.

My comments are more in response to the one-mindedness that often can come when the applicant goes straight through, as their perspective is just different. It is the psych equivalent of being a "gunner", where the applicant is most likely very bright, driven, etc...they just don't have the same frame of reference because psych has been such a singular focus for them.

psybee summed up my position much better that I previously described.....

some of us had an entire other life before grad school--it's not "taking time off", it's having been alive while not studying psychology at an academic institution, being a person outside of higher ed. i have tons of extremely talented younger colleagues at my school, and the differences between people in terms of clinical or research skills often has most to do with the broader personality of the individual than if they are 23 or 26, but, broadly, if you consider prior research experience helpful in your research work now (even if it was in a very different area), academic leaning as helpful in being in academia now, lived experience (from which you learned and grew and developed insight) is also meaningful resouce to draw from in any purist in which you have to relate to other people.

 

[O Gurl]

They're by and large not excelling and not failing, by my knowledge, to my standards. I think being a turbo-undergrad is probably highly associated with being very book-smart, and probably decently associated with actual (though perhaps untapped) genius, so I'm not surprised they generally do fine. I just think they'd do better if they focused more on process and less on content.

Uhh... great. But you have no evidence that 1) they are more content-oriented and 2) their development is delayed/impeded because of it. If there are no glaring issues (attrition, low match rates, problems defending thesis/dissertation on time) then one must assume they are progressing nicely.

Well, good for you. I'm not aware of the existence of data either way and was just requesting to see it; my own psycinfo search turned up dry for a meta-analysis of therapist age and treatment outcome.

I'm unaware of any such study within the VA and honestly couldn't care less if one existed. Psychology doctoral admissions (to credible programs) is TOUGH. Programs invest a lot of time and money into developing their trainees and thus, admissions are not taken lightly. The VA (as a potential training site and employer) is also very selective. So if one is able to secure a position and thrive in this environment, then I am inclined to trust their skill. Again, anecdotally, your idea that it is easier for young therapists to connect with younger patients has not proven true for me. I've built rappoort much quicker with Vietnam Era and older Vets who are truly SICK of living with their mental illness and missing out on life than with returning OEF/IEF Vets who think "therapy is gay". So perhaps the Veteran's age would be an issue, I am simply not seeing much evidence for the reverse impacting therapeutic alliance/outcome.

 

[somedude14]

My comments are more in response to the one-mindedness that often can come when the applicant goes straight through, as their perspective is just different. It is the psych equivalent of being a "gunner", where the applicant is most likely very bright, driven, etc...they just don't have the same frame of reference because psych has been such a singular focus for them.

psybee summed up my position much better that I previously described.....

Both sides of this argument do not have any facts. Just because you say their perspective is "just different" is doesn't make it so. Some people do not need to go out and live in the "real world" to become great graduate students. Both sides are only basing their arguments on anecdotal evidence but the belief that students CAN be competent strait out of undergrad is much more open minded than saying they CANNOT. It's just flawed logic and narrow-mindedness. "Students can't be good at psych because they haven't had time to do other stuff." It doesn't make any sense. It just sounds like some (not all) people that took time off feel like they must be wiser because they are older.

Until there is a research study that shows strait out of under grad to grad school students do significantly worse in research or clinical work, this topic will not be worth discussing.

 

[cara susanna]

As for age and therapy outcomes--citation? I'd prefer to see data from a VA or such on this, as the easy college CC data may not be representative--the clients are almost all 18-22, and hence younger than even the young therapists.

Beutler, L. E., Malik, M., Alimohamed, S., Harwood, T. M., Talebi, H., Noble, S., & Wong, E. (2003). Therapist variables. In M. J. Lambert (Ed), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed.)(pp. 227-306). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

They discuss several studies. One actually found that young adult patients whose therapist was a similar age had better outcomes on social isolation and distress. Beck did find that a 10 year age discrepancy with the therapist being younger led to the poorest outcomes of the patient-therapist age similarity levels.

 

[roubs]

Until there is a research study that shows strait out of under grad to grad school students do significantly worse in research or clinical work, this topic will not be worth discussing.

I think you are making a strawman here. If someone straight out of undergrad has little life experience it would probably benefit them to work. If they had work experience since 16 and through college then they have seen that angle and are probably fine. I don't think people are saying they "CANNOT" do well.

Beutler, L. E., Malik, M., Alimohamed, S., Harwood, T. M., Talebi, H., Noble, S., & Wong, E. (2003). Therapist variables. In M. J. Lambert (Ed), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed.)(pp. 227-306). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Did this study look at the more subtle difference of a 22 yr old therapist at their first externship vs someone in their mid to late 20s?

 

[KayJay85]

I'm confused. Is the argument that straight-from-UG trainees lack true understanding of the science or that they lack the life experience to connect with difficult clients? There seems to be hints of both with no real evidence (theoretical, anecdotal, nor empirical) that this is the case.

 

[Napoleon4000]

I agree. It just sounds like really needy or insecure statements. Bottom line is that if you make it to interviews you met merit. Regardless of age...that is an achievement. I guess we all need to believe in something, even if it is not based on facts. This sounds so familiar. All these comparisons are non-sequitur. Merit or experience. If anything age doesn't necessarily equal maturity. For that matter age may not provide experience either. Bunch of nonsense....

I'm confused. Is the argument that straight-from-UG trainees lack true understanding of the science or that they lack the life experience to connect with difficult clients? There seems to be hints of both with no real evidence (theoretical, anecdotal, nor empirical) that this is the case.

 

[roubs]

I'm confused. Is the argument that straight-from-UG trainees lack true understanding of the science or that they lack the life experience to connect with difficult clients? There seems to be hints of both with no real evidence (theoretical, anecdotal, nor empirical) that this is the case.

I believe the OP said he thought that 21-22 year olds were less likely to be "well rounded" and thought aloud that this might have negative implications. And then we were off to the races.

 

[JockNerd]

But you have no evidence that....

When did I claim to have evidence? I have my perception, which I voiced and asked if others perceived the same thing or a different thing, especially as it related to graduate studies in other fields. I was checking a perception, not stating that I thought something was a fact. I have some loose thoughts around why I think my perception is correct, why it might be, and what it might mean, but I don't think I ever claimed to have anything more than that perception.

I'm not really sure where the reactionary posts about my posts are coming from. I'm not saying 21ish year olds are babbling fools. I'm presenting my perception that many are often not as able to understand the process of science because they've focused on technical issues, and that this impedes being able to tell the good from the weaker. It's fully possible that that's not correct, though I've not been compelled by responses to alter my view.

I'm unaware of any such study within the VA...

Either you didn't understand the meaning of my post, or there's some connection here that I'm not grasping. I didn't mean the VA specifically or exclusively; I mean a setting where nearly all the clients are not going to be younger than even a young therapist (i.e., a uni CC). Your personal example is interesting for what it's worth, but I'm not sure why you'd be uninterested in research that addresses this--seems to be just what's called for to me.

Beutler, L. E., Malik, M., Alimohamed, S., Harwood, T. M., Talebi, H., Noble, S., & Wong, E. (2003). Therapist variables. In M. J. Lambert (Ed), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed.)(pp. 227-306). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

They discuss several studies. One actually found that young adult patients whose therapist was a similar age had better outcomes on social isolation and distress. Beck did find that a 10 year age discrepancy with the therapist being younger led to the poorest outcomes of the patient-therapist age similarity levels.

So.... the first example is neutral (reason is above; young therapist is still older than young trainee, and age is a factor that increases client-patient match in that case, so obviously it's good); the second example supports what I contended.

b/c it's a book it'll take me a couple days to get my hands on that, but it's going on the list, thanks!

 

[futureapppsy2]

FWIW, I came straight out of undergrad and have the most publishing experience of anyone in my cohort, being the only one who had prior experience publishing journal articles (although one of my cohortmates published a book chapter prior to starting the program). Thus, my cohortmates have asked me about how the publishing process works.

As far as clinical experience, the people who came in with Masters (social work or counseling/clinical psych) or Specialist degrees (school psych) obviously have a leg-up coming in, if only because they were in positions to legally and ethically get real clinical experience. Those of us who entered with BAs, whether we took time off or not, were obviously limited in the types of clinical experience we could legally and ethically get (e.g., testing for research purposes, co-facilitating groups, working in group homes or therapeutic preschools, etc). This experience is definitely helpful, but obviously there's a certain limit to the amount of preparation it gives you for "true" clinical work.

Not to make this personal, but, IIRC, didn't you come straight out of undergrad, JN?

 

[O Gurl]

When did I claim to have evidence? I have my perception, which I voiced and asked if others perceived the same thing or a different thing, especially as it related to graduate studies in other fields. I was checking a perception, not stating that I thought something was a fact. I have some loose thoughts around why I think my perception is correct, why it might be, and what it might mean, but I don't think I ever claimed to have anything more than that perception.

When you are questioning merit based on age without even seeing evidence that straight-from-undergrad trainees are performing poorly at your own institution, I think people have a right to bristle. I have to agree with Kayjay in that you and maybe a few others seem to be flip-flopping between whether it is a lack of understanding the science (theory, data analysis, or design) or whether it is an inability to connect with older or more complex patients that concerns you. Regardless of which is your argument, my counterpoint is that that is the whole purpose of grad school: taking graduate courses, completing thesis/dissertation projects, working research assistantships, completing practica and internships, etc--to develop scientist practitioners. You then go on to make the distinction between "young therapists" and "young trainees". Hello? None of us will be trainees by the time we are able to practice independently. None of us will be 21 or 22 either. So all of your hypothetical concerns, if they even exist, would be addressed at the trainee level... long before any of the defective youngins are unleashed on the public.

Either you didn't understand the meaning of my post, or there's some connection here that I'm not grasping. I didn't mean the VA specifically or exclusively; I mean a setting where nearly all the clients are not going to be younger than even a young therapist (i.e., a uni CC).

Uhhh...???

As for age and therapy outcomes--citation? I'd prefer to see data from a VA or such on this, as the easy college CC data may not be representative--the clients are almost all 18-22, and hence younger than even the young therapists.

Ok. So I only pointed out that I am unaware of a study in the VA that examines this. You did ask.

Your personal example is interesting for what it's worth, but I'm not sure why you'd be uninterested in research that addresses this--seems to be just what's called for to me.

Um, no. No it is not "called for" at all. Research should be theory or evidence-driven. You have to have some backing for your hypothesis. Again, you have admitted that the turbo-trainees in your program turn out just fine by all training metrics.

 

[kapinkkidowski]

Call me crazy, but I dont see how one can argue against saying a younger applicant is LESS likely to have their act together. not that its impossible. not that there arent any wonderful grad students doing great who went straight through from undergrad. However, yes, if I interviewed an undergrad then I'd ask, "what makes you ready for this?"

I've been doing independent research since I was 15. Yes, real research, IRB approved and all. I KNEW I wanted to do research. I graduated undergrad magna cum laude. I used the same GRE score I took in my senior year of undergrad to apply to phd programs...3 years later. As a matter of fact, an undergrad prof whom I'd known since I was 18 wrote one of my recs when I did eventually apply (no need to "improve" anything) Here was my reasoning: I felt I had been too driven. I thought I knew what I wanted, but how could I be sure? I'd been doing the same thing since I was 15! So instead of diving in headlong, I forced myself to try something else....which made it more than obvious to me that I was right all along and its what I wanted to do. And although I had the skill and the credentials to get into a program at 21, I still felt much more ready in a different way a couple of years later. When I interviewed for programs, I could tell people that I was sure that I was ready and this is what I wanted to do because I'd tested it out.

This is something someone going straight out of undergrad CANT tell you because they havent tried anything else. I dont feel like it was a waste to take time to confirm what I already knew. But that doesnt mean everyone else has to either; I dont think this is the downfall of a person if they dont by far, they can still be stellar, and if they were I wouldnt hold it against them. But yes, I'd be a little skeptical, as it would be less and less likely the younger than person was, that they did have all of the prerequisite experience.

And yes, I do think that 22 is very different from 20, and 24 is different from 22. Not necessarily between ppl, but for any single person. I think a lot changes in your early 20s. I am not the person I was 2 years ago, or 4 years ago; its surprising just how much. A 20 year old can definitely be more mature than some 30 or 40 year olds, but that doesnt change that they'll most likely still be quite different in the way they see the world 2 years later (not so much for the 40 year old).

As for the younger grad students out there, I wouldnt get offended; consider yourself uniquely qualified. I dont think you'd have been accepted into a program if not. However, we were talking about all applicants, not those accepted,and i'd be willing to bet that you indeed were unique amongst your agemates in the applicant pool

 

[O Gurl]

Call me crazy, but I dont see how one can argue against saying a younger applicant is LESS likely to have their act together. not that its impossible. not that there arent any wonderful grad students doing great who went straight through from undergrad. However, yes, if I interviewed an undergrad then I'd ask, "what makes you ready for this?"

I've been doing independent research since I was 15. Yes, real research, IRB approved and all. I KNEW I wanted to do research. I graduated undergrad magna cum laude. I used the same GRE score I took in my senior year of undergrad to apply to phd programs...3 years later. As a matter of fact, an undergrad prof whom I'd known since I was 18 wrote one of my recs when I did eventually apply (no need to "improve" anything) Here was my reasoning: I felt I had been too driven. I thought I knew what I wanted, but how could I be sure? I'd been doing the same thing since I was 15! So instead of diving in headlong, I forced myself to try something else....which made it more than obvious to me that I was right all along and its what I wanted to do. And although I had the skill and the credentials to get into a program at 21, I still felt much more ready in a different way a couple of years later. When I interviewed for programs, I could tell people that I was sure that I was ready and this is what I wanted to do because I'd tested it out.

This is something someone going straight out of undergrad CANT tell you because they havent tried anything else. I dont feel like it was a waste to take time to confirm what I already knew. But that doesnt mean everyone else has to either; I dont think this is the downfall of a person if they dont by far, they can still be stellar, and if they were I wouldnt hold it against them. But yes, I'd be a little skeptical, as it would be less and less likely the younger than person was, that they did have all of the prerequisite experience.

And yes, I do think that 22 is very different from 20, and 24 is different from 22. Not necessarily between ppl, but for any single person. I think a lot changes in your early 20s. I am not the person I was 2 years ago, or 4 years ago; its surprising just how much. A 20 year old can definitely be more mature than some 30 or 40 year olds, but that doesnt change that they'll most likely still be quite different in the way they see the world 2 years later (not so much for the 40 year old).

As for the younger grad students out there, I wouldnt get offended; consider yourself uniquely qualified. I dont think you'd have been accepted into a program if not. However, we were talking about all applicants, not those accepted,and i'd be willing to bet that you indeed were unique amongst your agemates in the applicant pool

I think you are right in that straight from undergrad trainees are uncommon. I attribute this to the sheer competitiveness of the admissions process. Which is why it is all the more shocking to see such unfounded criticisms of the few who are able to take that route. I'm not sure the convo up to this point was about the ones who applied unsuccessfully straight from UG. What would be the point? And I totally understand if you elected to take time off and explore other options. That only makes sense if one is questioning this choice. However, can you really fault someone else who wanted to get on with it? I have no problem admitting that I've always wanted to start my career (with finished degree) before the age of the 30. Amongst my friends from HS, I am actually behind the curve. Those who pursued dentistry and law, for example, have been in practice for a year or so now. I get that psychology is a longer path. However, I make no apologies for not choosing to make it even longer.

 

[kapinkkidowski]

I think you are right in that straight from undergrad trainees are uncommon. I attribute this to the sheer competitiveness of the admissions process. Which is why it is all the more shocking to see such unfounded criticisms of the few who are able to take that route. I'm not sure the convo up to this point was about the ones who applied unsuccessfully straight from UG. What would be the point? And I totally understand if you elected to take time off and explore other options. That only makes sense if one is questioning this choice. However, can you really fault someone else who wanted to get on with it? I have no problem admitting that I've always wanted to start my career (with finished degree) before the age of the 30. Amongst my friends from HS, I am actually behind the curve. Those who pursued dentistry and law, for example, have been in practice for a year or so now. I get that psychology is a longer path. However, I make no apologies for not choosing to make it even longer.

Not faulting you at all. My whole point is that someone who not only has all the qualifications but 'really' knows what they want,and has the maturity as well, is rarer at 20 than it is at 25. not that it doesnt exist. im sure it does. if someone were to say that its impossible and that they would turn down a 21 year old applicant straight off they'd be completely wrong. but if someone were to say well, i'm surprised to see 10 twenty-one year olds interviewing bc qualified 21 year old applicants are rare, well, yeah, they are. personally, i dont even ask demographic questions of applicants at all, but if i were to hear about a relatively short research/work/academic history (a few years less compared to others), id ask the questions, why is this person just as qualified as these other guys, and do they know if this is what they really want. at "our age" (meaning with most applicants being somewhere in their 20s), years of experience is usually tied with age. however, yes, for all i know they could be the most qualified person in the room...but the less time they've been out there, the less likely that is...

and going back to the original post, considering that the admissions process seems more competitive every year, i'd be surprised if there really was a trend towards younger applicants, i actually haven't seen one myself

 

[KayJay85]

I think it hilarious that nearly every debate or discussion on SDN boils down to a "show me the data!"

It is doubtful that there will ever be a large, well-designed, and well-controlled study that examines therapy outcomes across all types of patients in all settings and examining all therapist factors, especially training route. So what we are left with is our own observations.

I did not go straight from UG. I tried, but was not admitted. Looking back on it, I know that research involvement was my downfall. I took 2 years before reapplying and worked in a lab for 1.5 of those years. I honestly am grateful that I did so because I ended up applying to a program that had not even been on my radar during the first cycle and couldn't be happier here now (3 years in). The main advantage I can think of is that I did have that extra time to flesh out my interests and to get a taste for what funded-research is like. But can I look askance at someone who got research experience in UG and went straight in? Absolutely not.

Thinking about if from and admissions side, which many are discussing, I can understand and initial pull to question why a person straight from UG is worthy or sure of their path when there are others there who have spent a year or more in the field. However, you may also want to look at what the other applicants did with their time in UG. I would wager there would be serious differences. Again, I am not afraid to admit I neglected research then. So if someone else did not make that mistake and can cut the mustard for admissions, then great for them.

 

[Napoleon4000]

Exactly! I mean, I look at the undergrads here (a school in LA). Many get research experience in labs for 3-4 years throughout their undergraduate education. I think age is only a factor if:
1) one needs to improve gpa
2) one needs to get research experience
3) one needs to get clinical experience
4) one is not truly ready
5) needs on improving gre scores

I don't equate age with maturity or experience. I think it's a matter of how one spends their time during undergraduate. No matter whether you went to Ivy league or large UC or small private, if I see someone's CV/resume that they spent several years in the clinic/lab, while undertaking their studies, this matters. I can pick out ten students here at random who will either say the are in a lab doing research (in addition to their studies) and who show "scientific acumen," and great time management skills. This debate is nonsense and largely depends where you are from (school) and what you did with your time.

I think it hilarious that nearly every debate or discussion on SDN boils down to a "show me the data!"

It is doubtful that there will ever be a large, well-designed, and well-controlled study that examines therapy outcomes across all types of patients in all settings and examining all therapist factors, especially training route. So what we are left with is our own observations.

I did not go straight from UG. I tried, but was not admitted. Looking back on it, I know that research involvement was my downfall. I took 2 years before reapplying and worked in a lab for 1.5 of those years. I honestly am grateful that I did so because I ended up applying to a program that had not even been on my radar during the first cycle and couldn't be happier here now (3 years in). The main advantage I can think of is that I did have that extra time to flesh out my interests and to get a taste for what funded-research is like. But can I look askance at someone who got research experience in UG and went straight in? Absolutely not.

Thinking about if from and admissions side, which many are discussing, I can understand and initial pull to question why a person straight from UG is worthy or sure of their path when there are others there who have spent a year or more in the field. However, you may also want to look at what the other applicants did with their time in UG. I would wager there would be serious differences. Again, I am not afraid to admit I neglected research then. So if someone else did not make that mistake and can cut the mustard for admissions, then great for them.