Age of psych grad students

[Therapist4Chnge]

<--Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[phillydave]

It's not that I'd prefer a candidate with life experience (which I think is a vague and irrational construct)

I'm glad you made this distinction.. I was about to point this out.

 

[Napoleon4000]

It all began because of the statement below. Reminds of Hamlet's line:

Hamlet. "Seems," madam? Nay, it is; I know not "seems." You know it just could be that people just look younger. In reality we don't know what the life experience of those individuals are.

my favorite line here:

"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.)."

This is what I think people find argumentative because it may have no real basis on fact just "feeling."

Did you bother to speak or get to know the people you observed? Just a question.

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?

 

[Ollie123]

That was a question on a message board, not a published paper. Though of interest, there may actually be some semi-relevant data on this from a project I'm involved in that is currently underway (albeit it wasn't at all designed for that purpose).

Is there no limit to the amount of coddling and PCness that people on this board require? While we're on the topic of feelings, I definitely feel like it has gotten worse the last year or so.The original post doesn't seem at all unreasonable as a question, nor did it in any way indicate that being young inherently makes someone completely inept and unable to function in this field. Its the same freakin thing we see with professional schools where someone points out a trend and everyone jumps in with "But I know someone who...". We don't have formal data on this yet, but it was one person's observation and a question of whether anyone else had seen it occurring - I really have no idea why people got so uppity about it.

My take on all this is that JN observed that there seems to be an increasing number of applicants who look better on paper than they probably should upon meeting them, and attributes that to people "knowing how to play the game" so to speak and being able to build up paper-based credentials in a shorter time-frame despite a relative lack in actual ability. Whether they are accepted or not, that absolutely has implications for admissions and the field. Hopefully interviews would weed those folks out, but perhaps it is not always immediately obvious. Either way, it may shift the emphasis to fulfilling a checklist to look good rather than actual competence. I see it all the time from the pre-meds in our lab...they are usually far more interested in how many "hours" they spend in the lab playing on their cell phones and otherwise being useless, rather than what they actually derived from that. Many are a nightmare to work with, but will likely look great for med school and potentially "outshine" some of our good RAs who are far more competent. It creates additional pressure to look good on "paper" to secure that interview at your top choice, potentially at the expense of an actual qualification.

That doesn't mean its bad to be young - its great if someone has that experience early on, is confident in their choice to pursue psych, etc., etc. I'm not seeing where it is unreasonable to observe a trend like I described above and pose the question, though I haven't witnessed it and am not sure its a widespread problem.

For what its worth, I've heard the same thing is now being asked of faculty...due to the competition for faculty jobs, people are applying with more and more publications. Producing publications does not necessarily mean they are high quality...even things in good journals are often suspect, and I'm sure its not easy for faculty involved in the hiring process to evaluate the research of someone outside their primary research area. People are applying for faculty jobs with a ridiculous number of publications at a very young age, but that doesn't mean they are actually doing good work.

 

[AryaStark]

I'd argue that putting anything on this board makes it subject to "uppidy"-ness. Posting a somewhat controversial opinion or asking a very sensitive question is bound to elicit some negative feelings.

That was a question on a message board, not a published paper. Though of interest, there may actually be some semi-relevant data on this from a project I'm involved in that is currently underway (albeit it wasn't at all designed for that purpose).

Is there no limit to the amount of coddling and PCness that people on this board require? While we're on the topic of feelings, I definitely feel like it has gotten worse the last year or so.The original post doesn't seem at all unreasonable as a question, nor did it in any way indicate that being young inherently makes someone completely inept and unable to function in this field. Its the same freakin thing we see with professional schools where someone points out a trend and everyone jumps in with "But I know someone who...". We don't have formal data on this yet, but it was one person's observation and a question of whether anyone else had seen it occurring - I really have no idea why people got so uppity about it.

My take on all this is that JN observed that there seems to be an increasing number of applicants who look better on paper than they probably should upon meeting them, and attributes that to people "knowing how to play the game" so to speak and being able to build up paper-based credentials in a shorter time-frame despite a relative lack in actual ability. Whether they are accepted or not, that absolutely has implications for admissions and the field. Hopefully interviews would weed those folks out, but perhaps it is not always immediately obvious. Either way, it may shift the emphasis to fulfilling a checklist to look good rather than actual competence. I see it all the time from the pre-meds in our lab...they are usually far more interested in how many "hours" they spend in the lab playing on their cell phones and otherwise being useless, rather than what they actually derived from that. Many are a nightmare to work with, but will likely look great for med school and potentially "outshine" some of our good RAs who are far more competent. It creates additional pressure to look good on "paper" to secure that interview at your top choice, potentially at the expense of an actual qualification.

That doesn't mean its bad to be young - its great if someone has that experience early on, is confident in their choice to pursue psych, etc., etc. I'm not seeing where it is unreasonable to observe a trend like I described above and pose the question, though I haven't witnessed it and am not sure its a widespread problem.

For what its worth, I've heard the same thing is now being asked of faculty...due to the competition for faculty jobs, people are applying with more and more publications. Producing publications does not necessarily mean they are high quality...even things in good journals are often suspect, and I'm sure its not easy for faculty involved in the hiring process to evaluate the research of someone outside their primary research area. People are applying for faculty jobs with a ridiculous number of publications at a very young age, but that doesn't mean they are actually doing good work.

 

[nessa34]

I was going to hold off on chiming in on this, but it's gone on long enough I don't feel bad about perpetuating it a bit longer

The problem here is that we have two related, but different, constructs we're talking about:
one issue is people who see getting a doctorate as the goal to be reached, have decided on that goal fairly young, and don't see the point of making detours (aka taking time off) along the way, vs. those who see figuring out a career as more of a journey and don't mind exploring and having complementary experiences that sidetrack them for a bit. I'm definitely in the latter, but there's nothing wrong with the former and I think it has a lot to do with personality and how people make decisions.
the other is people who accomplish goals just to check them off, know how to game the system, and aren't really invested in what they're accomplishing, vs. those who get into their field and do it because they love it.
We all play the game to some extent, of course, but the underlying motivation varies.

I think the OP, and some of the people supporting him, are seeing the latter issue, but it came across as the former. Based on my own experiences, I'm biased to say that people will only be able to get enough experience, etc. to get into grad school right out of undergrad if they are just seizing on a goal without thinking about it (the second issue again). However, I know that my experiences are not everyone's, and that some people do genuinely know what they want to be at the age of 19 and do what they need to do to get there.

 

[JockNerd]

Thanks, Ollie; yes, that was what I was saying. Thanks for sharing that that's not your experience; good to know.

Someone asked if I wasn't straight out of undergrad. Yes, but I extended my degree out to 6 years, filling the last two years with research, volunteer work, work, and extra courses.

I'd argue that putting anything on this board makes it subject to "uppidy"-ness.

Is that a reason to not post potential uppity-ness inciting threads, or a reason for people to develop rational responses to them?

I think the OP, and some of the people supporting him, are seeing the latter issue, but it came across as the former.

I think I was pretty clear on my position and clarified it further as needed. I have little sympathy for people who want to read things I didn't say.

 

[AryaStark]

I was merely suggesting that posting something that doesn't involve "omg I am so nervous about getting into grad school" will stir things up.

Thanks, Ollie; yes, that was what I was saying. Thanks for sharing that that's not your experience; good to know.

Someone asked if I wasn't straight out of undergrad. Yes, but I extended my degree out to 6 years, filling the last two years with research, volunteer work, work, and extra courses.



Is that a reason to not post potential uppity-ness inciting threads, or a reason for people to develop rational responses to them?



I think I was pretty clear on my position and clarified it further as needed. I have little sympathy for people who want to read things I didn't say.

 

[Ollie123]

I'd argue that putting anything on this board makes it subject to "uppidy"-ness. Posting a somewhat controversial opinion or asking a very sensitive question is bound to elicit some negative feelings.

Hard to disagree with that. My point regarding that was that this board seems to increasingly operate in a constant state of hyperarousal, looking for any possible perceived slight that I'm not sure would cause anyone I know in real life to bat an eyelash. I'm just not sure if it is a psychology thing, an internet thing, a psychology x internet interaction, or some third variable But wait...I haven't done a study on this topic yet so I am not allowed to suggest that the board is uppity....of course, I'm also not supposed to run the study because I don't have data to support the hypothesis that the board is uppity...

 

[psychmama]

Hard to disagree with that. My point regarding that was that this board seems to increasingly operate in a constant state of hyperarousal, looking for any possible perceived slight that I'm not sure would cause anyone I know in real life to bat an eyelash. I'm just not sure if it is a psychology thing, an internet thing, a psychology x internet interaction, or some third variable But wait...I haven't done a study on this topic yet so I am not allowed to suggest that the board is uppity....of course, I'm also not supposed to run the study because I don't have data to support the hypothesis that the board is uppity...

Am I the only one who wonders if we're all taking ourselves just a tad too seriously here? [Go ahead, blast me for being insensitive] -- there are advantages to being young in grad school, and there are sometimes advantages to being older. Why don't we spend time trying to learn from one another rather than sniping and tearing down fellow students and colleagues?

I will get off my soapbox now...that is all. Carry on...

 

[PsychPhDone]

Most in my program have taken a few years to do extra research. I guarantee it was not because we were not qualified to get in in the first place. This career is a marathon, not a sprint, and those years "off" were invaluable for amassing skills, publications, and face-to-face networking contacts. Being able to focus on research with no competing demands of class, clinical work, or teaching was truly an advantage I am glad I had.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'd say the biggest issue that's arisen in this thread is that people have taken personally a large chunk of what's being said. Some of those who went to graduate school straight out of UG seem to have taken JN's original and subsequent posts as insults or jabs aimed specifically at them, while the same has been done by some not-straight-from-UG individuals in reading the replies of straight-from-UG posters.

I agree with Ollie in that I personally didn't see much that would've incited a huge emotional response in the OP. However, I also didn't come straight from undergrad, and thus was likely shielded from taking the post personally. Conversely, my knee-jerk response to some of the replies regarding students who elected to take time off have, indeed, incited a gut reaction that was extinguished by reminding myself that a) none of these points should actually be taken personally, b) most or all are likely not meant as insults, and c) even if they are insults, who cares.

I also agree that far too often on here we'll all voice the cry, "but where's the data!" Even without data, it's quite possible to have civil, rational, and intellectual debates. These debates are far from pointless. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that such debate is necessary to science as a whole. After all, this process of intellectual debate, and of general observation of those trends in human behavior that surround us, have given rise to most modern psychological theories.

 

[phillydave]

Without regard to the topic at hand, I would suggest that my experiences of becoming angered by what other members say about whatever topic has much more to do with the fact that we are reading eachother's written opinions as opposed to verbal, conversational opinions. For myself, it becomes easier to not get so worked up over what other members say if I can step back for a second and imagine if I would get so worked up if I were having the conversation face-to-face. The point that ollie makes is an interesting one, even if tounge in cheek. It's definitely an internet thing.

 

[O Gurl]

Is there no limit to the amount of coddling and PCness that people on this board require? While we're on the topic of feelings, I definitely feel like it has gotten worse the last year or so.The original post doesn't seem at all unreasonable as a question, nor did it in any way indicate that being young inherently makes someone completely inept and unable to function in this field. Its the same freakin thing we see with professional schools where someone points out a trend and everyone jumps in with "But I know someone who...". We don't have formal data on this yet, but it was one person's observation and a question of whether anyone else had seen it occurring - I really have no idea why people got so uppity about it.

I'm assuming I am one of those who, in your opinion, got "uppity". Funny, as I did not enter this thread saying that anyone's path was a "drawback" or potentially damaging for the field. I am not talking about the original post itself, but the responses. Anyone who wishes to actually read this thread can see where the wheels came off. When people make comments like that, they should be able to back them up. They couldn't. So I chalk it up to cognitive dissonance.

My take on all this is that JN observed that there seems to be an increasing number of applicants who look better on paper than they probably should upon meeting them, and attributes that to people "knowing how to play the game" so to speak and being able to build up paper-based credentials in a shorter time-frame despite a relative lack in actual ability. Whether they are accepted or not, that absolutely has implications for admissions and the field. Hopefully interviews would weed those folks out, but perhaps it is not always immediately obvious. Either way, it may shift the emphasis to fulfilling a checklist to look good rather than actual competence. I see it all the time from the pre-meds in our lab...they are usually far more interested in how many "hours" they spend in the lab playing on their cell phones and otherwise being useless, rather than what they actually derived from that. Many are a nightmare to work with, but will likely look great for med school and potentially "outshine" some of our good RAs who are far more competent. It creates additional pressure to look good on "paper" to secure that interview at your top choice, potentially at the expense of an actual qualification.

That doesn't mean its bad to be young - its great if someone has that experience early on, is confident in their choice to pursue psych, etc., etc. I'm not seeing where it is unreasonable to observe a trend like I described above and pose the question, though I haven't witnessed it and am not sure its a widespread problem.

For what its worth, I've heard the same thing is now being asked of faculty...due to the competition for faculty jobs, people are applying with more and more publications. Producing publications does not necessarily mean they are high quality...even things in good journals are often suspect, and I'm sure its not easy for faculty involved in the hiring process to evaluate the research of someone outside their primary research area. People are applying for faculty jobs with a ridiculous number of publications at a very young age, but that doesn't mean they are actually doing good work.

If the question is quantity and speed versus quality, then that is a very valid concern regardless of the applicant's age or speed of training. It is an issue for selection committees, which I assume are composed of competent and invested individuals. I'm sure they are able to adequately interview a potential trainee/employee. I'd also wager that they know how to conduct a search on PubMed and review the applicant's work or request samples. Are we chasing some phantom trend that hypothetically could be bad for the field? If we are talking about shallow trainees, then they are likely developed or weeded out through grad school. If we are now talking about shallow faculty candidates, they are likely not passing the whiff test. Even if they are getting hired somewhere by some institution that did not thoroughly vet them, they are likely not lasting very long beyond their first year of funding. Seems like a self-correcting process.

 

[Ollie123]

You were one, but are in quite good company (nor am I completely innocent of this sort of behavior myself in other threads).

I think you have far more faith in the selection process than I do. I think it is reasonably effective and the best that we can realistically achieve, but it is far from perfect. Some may be able to put on enough of a show for a 30 minute interview. Some may have achieved an impressive enough record that they accepted despite their interview (e.g. "Maybe they were just nervous..."). Some of these will get weeded out, others will not. Some may not make it through grad school, others will. Even those who do not will likely have taken away a spot from someone who may have been a better candidate. While the topic is different, the core structure is the same issue I have with professional schools. I'm not too worried about losing out on my dream job to an unqualified student from Argosy/Alliant/etc. Many of the lower-level students will likely struggle for internships, post-docs, licensure, etc. That doesn't change the fact that it is probably not good for the profession for them to be around in ever-increasing numbers. Similarly, consequences will exist if applicants are expected to have a dozen publications before they even apply for graduate school in order to secure an interview.

The system will self-correct to some extent, but a continually broken system still won't lead to good long-term outcomes. Yes, some individuals may struggle and fail in the long run. However, I don't think there is any question that there has been a culture-shift in academia over the years. The days of people spending years working on a single paper are long gone in the name of academic productivity. Scientists are rewarded for producing lots of papers in good journals...but peer-review evaluates the presentation of the research, which is probably more correlated with the quality of the design and the writing ability of the authors than the actual quality of the research. Bad science can still make for great papers in top-tier journals, but that's a rant for another day.

My point was just that it seems reasonable to be concerned that there is some downward drift of this effect in academia that JN seems to think is hitting the admissions process (though again, I haven't witnessed it). You are correct that this would be a concern regardless of age. However, I think the point was that we were seeing younger candidates who have CVs that frankly make them look much more "older" than they should be. Applicants straight from undergrad might have CVs that look equivalent to what advanced grad students might have had several decades ago. Now, there are a lot of potential reasons for that (e.g. one doesn't need a computer the size of a house to run a t-test) but I suspect academic culture plays a role. Either way, there is a difference between building up a CV and building up abilities. We all have to do both to some extent, for sure, but the question is where the emphasis is. This obviously isn't black and white, and there are certainly aspects of my CV that I take more pride in than others (I suspect everyone has them), but its a matter of degree.

 

[O Gurl]

Ollie,

I hear you and agree wholeheartedly that people who are smoozing, check-marking, or skating their way through higher education are problematic. However, those of us who are "doing it the hard way" ultimately create the environment where the charlatans cannot excel. For example, I am thinking of a grad school cohortmate who seemed to breeze through the typical hurdles: got her thesis done in record time while the rest of us had a painful amount of iterations to our proposals and final projects; managed to get her name on an insane number of posters that she couldn't described fluently; applied for internship in her fourth year with very suspect looking face-to-face hours... seemed untouchable. And it was infuriating. BUT she was weeded out and did not match despite having 7 interviews. I imagine she did not pass the whiff test when appropriately questioned. Ultimately, she got a not-so-hot CC position through clearing house and went on to an equally mediocre fellowship.Of course this does not always happen, but at least in my limited experience, the people who excel and become the leaders in this field (chief psychologists, training directors, academic power players) pay their dues. Not to sound to cliche, but the cream rises to the top. This is why I am also an advocate for ABPP certifications and such--to reclaim as much validity for our field as possible. However, waging a war of avoiding all skaters on the front end is a losing battle. It gets particularly hairy when gross generalizations are applied, such as the straight-from-UG position.

 

[Ollie123]

Don't disagree with anything you said. Many will fail, some will get by. Certainly the cream will rise to the top. However, just because the cream rises to the top doesn't mean there aren't consequences for the field as a whole (which is my point). Again, people make similar arguments in favor of professional schools accepting everyone with a pulse, but its created the internship debacle, it is likely driving down salaries and over-saturating certain markets. It has almost certainly cost our field as a whole respect from members of other disciplines as the "prototype" psychology student has probably shifted in that direction. Those are the sort of consequences I'm speaking of.

In terms of admissions, I agree trying to "weed it out" on the front end is hard/impossible, and would never suggest (nor do I think any of the posters would) that psychology admissions set an arbitrary "You must be 25 or older to apply" or some-such nonsense. Rather, I'm asking whether a "publish or perish" mentality in newly admitted 18-year-old college freshman for the sake of graduate school admissions has consequences on education, just as it likely does on the quality of science being produced, and what could be done to alter that culture in a way that people don't go about undergrad (or grad school, or faculty jobs for that matter) just slopping together as much as they can for the sake of being able to say they did x, y and z. While I haven't strictly seen what JN saw at this point, I do think we are heading in that direction with the current academic culture. How that could/would be changed seems a discussion worth having.

 

[StrangeVision]

I'd say the biggest issue that's arisen in this thread is that people have taken personally a large chunk of what's being said. Some of those who went to graduate school straight out of UG seem to have taken JN's original and subsequent posts as insults or jabs aimed specifically at them, while the same has been done by some not-straight-from-UG individuals in reading the replies of straight-from-UG posters.

I was kinda thinking this as well. I never would've expected much heated debate about such a topic. I'm just going to share my experiences interviewing this year, and they are definitely NOT an attempt to attack anyone or make generalizations. I've gone on a number of interviews over the past month, and I saw large variations from school to school on proportions of straight-from-undergrad interviewees. I'm 29 and took a few years off to do more research/volunteering/psych master's work, so I expected to be older than most applicants anyway. At one school, very few interviewees were straight from undergrad. At another, I was one of only a few older interviewees. The rest were all a pretty good mix of both.

From my own experience, I can look back to when I finished my undergrad and I have a MUCH better idea now of what I want to do. In undergrad I thought I'd like to primarily do practice, while getting a few more years of research experience and some teaching experience made me realize I'm more interested in going the academic route. Also, my research interests have become much more focused. If I'd applied straight from undergrad, it likely would've been to different schools and POIs that would've been a poorer match for me in the long run. I'm not saying this is true for everyone, but it definitely was for me.

Also, I'll share the 2 most cringeworthy things I heard from undergrad interviewees. I'm by no means saying these people are representative (I'd actually recoil in horror if I thought any such thing), just wanted to collectively share the amusement on here.

1- I asked a current student if SPSS or any other package(s) was free for students, and another interviewee said, "What's SPSS?"
I only applied to relatively selective university PhD programs, so I shudder to think how this person slipped through the cracks and even got an interview.

2- At a different school, while talking to two undergrad applicants with similar research interests, I realized I'd already interviewed to work with a POI they'd both applied to but hadn't heard back from. I let them know the interview had already taken place, and they convinced each other that I was lying because there was 'no way' a school would send out invites without them being notified with either an invite or a rejection. They walked away, saying they would probably hear something in the next week.

 

[urlelove]

I think graduate certificate is highly practical and aims at preparing psychologists for professional practice in the area of school sports, from advising coaches and sports officers to advising health professionals to improve the guidelines for physical activities. . .

 

[AcronymAllergy]

1- I asked a current student if SPSS or any other package(s) was free for students, and another interviewee said, "What's SPSS?"
I only applied to relatively selective university PhD programs, so I shudder to think how this person slipped through the cracks and even got an interview.

I'm going to hope/assume that this might've been because they've renamed it to PASW, and so many current undergrads may not know the SPSS acronym anymore...?

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm going to hope/assume that this might've been because they've renamed it to PASW, and so many current undergrads may not know the SPSS acronym anymore...?

They also may have been trained on another program- SAS, R, etc. Everyone I know still calls PASW SPSS, though.

 

[StrangeVision]

They also may have been trained on another program- SAS, R, etc. Everyone I know still calls PASW SPSS, though.

I had hoped it was a case of something like that going on, but unfortunately, the interviewee explained that she had done her undergrad in English with a Psych minor and didn't have any stats experience. It made me wonder how anyone could get by in psych without any stats, even for a minor.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I had hoped it was a case of something like that going on, but unfortunately, the interviewee explained that she had done her undergrad in English with a Psych minor and didn't have any stats experience. It made me wonder how anyone could get by in psych without any stats, even for a minor.

Very surprising indeed. Even more surprising that the department didn't have a stats pre-req. Although I don't know if I remember using SPSS in my undergrad intro stats class, so I suppose it's possible to make it through without any knowledge of the program despite having taken the course.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I was 20 yrs old when I interviewed and a few months shy of 21 when I started my PhD program. Age really "ain't nothin' but a number". I feel I am just as (and sadly, sometimes more) mature than some of the older people in my entire program (professors and faculty included). Understanding the 'interconnected complexities of ANOVAs' really should have nothing to do with getting in to a good program. Nobody is automatically born a first year grad student. I think the point is proving that you do indeed have the mental maturity and growth potential to eventually, and in due time, understand the 'deep seated profoundness of philosophy and science' ("or whatever", says the perpetual teenager in me).

Till then, regardless of how old you are, I think we're all just here to learn

 

[megmont]

picture this..you are sitting in clinical interviewing class. you are older. took time off because you did not know if this whole psych gig was foeva. you worked EVERYWHERE. experience?? you had it. today's class was something about suicide risk assessment ... this is what i was thinking ...IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY ASSESS SUICIDE RISK HOW DID YOU GET IN???

OR when your cohort is asked to state what goes on what axis and there are blank stares... YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN A TREATMENT PLAN???? AXIS II ISNT FOR MDD!!!!!!!

OR when someone does a presentation on spectrum disorders and your cohort is fascinated by the term "Aspies" its all so foreign.. they they they can talk??? but but but why are they on the spectrum??? they look typical to me!

riiiggghhhttt. but that was 3 years ago. the people i called out in my examples are brilliant scholars and clinicians!

its give and take. i stunk at STATS when i first arrived and they had a lack of clinical experience. my program is balanced between the young and the old, more importantly, between individuals that excel in some areas and need support to excel in other areas.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

picture this..you are sitting in clinical interviewing class. you are older. took time off because you did not know if this whole psych gig was foeva. you worked EVERYWHERE. experience?? you had it. today's class was something about suicide risk assessment ... this is what i was thinking ...IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY ASSESS SUICIDE RISK HOW DID YOU GET IN???

OR when your cohort is asked to state what goes on what axis and there are blank stares... YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN A TREATMENT PLAN???? AXIS II ISNT FOR MDD!!!!!!!

OR when someone does a presentation on spectrum disorders and your cohort is fascinated by the term "Aspies" its all so foreign.. they they they can talk??? but but but why are they on the spectrum??? they look typical to me!

riiiggghhhttt. but that was 3 years ago. the people i called out in my examples are brilliant scholars and clinicians!

its give and take. i stunk at STATS when i first arrived and they had a lack of clinical experience. my program is balanced between the young and the old, more importantly, between individuals that excel in some areas and need support to excel in other areas.

I understand your point and definitely agree (i.e., that we all come in with strengths and weaknesses, and will need varying levels of assistance throughout the course of our program). However, with respect to your first example--I definitely wouldn't expect a first-year graduate student to know how to assess suicide risk. Hell, there are practicing clinicians who struggle with that, especially considering how relatively poor we all can be (collectively as a field) at that and violence risk assessment.

 

[LyricAnalysis]

I am editing this because I really do not want to fan the flames more than necessary. To put it simply, in my 6 years of training, I have yet to meet anyone who would have passed up the opportunity to go to graduate school right away. To find so many people here at SDN who were committed to personal growth and well-roundedness that they would intentionally extend their training time for years is more than a little suspicious. This thread was hugely disappointing.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I am editing this because I really do not want to fan the flames more than necessary. To put it simply, in my 6 years of training, I have yet to meet anyone who would have passed up the opportunity to go to graduate school right away. To find so many people here at SDN who were committed to personal growth and well-roundedness that they would intentionally extend their training time for years is more than a little suspicious. This thread was hugely disappointing.

You've had very different experiences than me, then. Most of the people I've meet in my years of training, like you say, have wanted admittance to grad school fairly immediately--however, this was only after finally making the decision that grad school is what they wanted to do. I know quite a few (in our program, I would venture to say upwards of 50%) people who took a year or two to work in research labs, on clinical hotlines, and the like not just to strengthen their application, but to be sure that psychology is actually what they wanted to do with their lives.

 

[psypsypsy]

I am editing this because I really do not want to fan the flames more than necessary. To put it simply, in my 6 years of training, I have yet to meet anyone who would have passed up the opportunity to go to graduate school right away. To find so many people here at SDN who were committed to personal growth and well-roundedness that they would intentionally extend their training time for years is more than a little suspicious. This thread was hugely disappointing.

Hmm, I have to disagree with this completely...I would say that almost everyone I met who's taken time off has appreciated it and not wished that they would have gone immediately. This may be different for a few people who did not get in initially, or really had to spend years and years improving their resume. However, the vast majority of people in my program have taken time off (I'm going to guess 2 years on average). I, for one, did, and would never have taken it back. I had done a lot of research in undergrad, had a publication, and actually took the GRE before my senior year because I thought I might want to apply right away. Instead, I decided that I wanted to see what life was like not in school, get more real-world experience, and a more diverse research background prior to going back. When I applied, I think my research interests were much deeper and more nuanced, my perspective on psychology and its role in medicine, and in general, I had really grown and matured as a person. I think it's helped me keep more balance in graduate school as well because I can remember when I didn't have a job and what balance was like then, and work not to get too far from that.

More importantly, if we as psychologists/psychologist trainees are "committed to personal growth and well-roundedness," as you state, that does not only occur AFTER graduating, as you suggest. To me, that just does not make any sense. Taking time off before graduate school may also be because you are just as, if not more committed to that, and to entering graduate school with a perspective of personal growth and well-roundedness. I'm not trying to say that's the only way, or that it's better to wait than go straight through, just that you seemed to make a "fan-flaming" statement that the way to personal growth is simply to graduate more quickly and that everyone wishes that they would have.

 

[LyricAnalysis]

I was just taken aback by the attitude presented in this thread that people who do not take at least a year or two before grad school are somehow more mechanical, less developed, less well-rounded, etc. than people who did. In reading through these comments, I kept waiting for the compelling reason as to why this might be true, only to read things like vague references to maturity and life experience, real-world vs. academic bubbles, and deep understanding of MANOVA. Really? And then to read further and realize that a good number of these arguments were being raised by people who only took 1 or 2 years in between and worked in psychology in the meantime. (?) Not saying this applies to everyone, but it started to read like an attack on all who chose a different path from them. That is shocking coming from a group of intelligent and trained critical thinkers. It also just didn’t seem to fit with my experiences at whether in psychology or not. Plenty of people go straight to med school, law school, or study for their MBA right after undergrad. I thought that is what college is for- to set yourself on a path toward a career. What is it about psychology that makes it an exception? I hate to be cynical, but perhaps it is the acceptance rates.

 

[psypsypsy]

Well, I wouldn't actually disagree with you that it is partially the acceptance rates that leads people in psychology to take some time off before applying. When that many people are applying to a school, the faculty have the ability to be very picky in who they want to take. To me, a lot of what people have said (about ANOVAs, being more mechanical, less well-rounded), probably comes from faculty at their school. I think faculty in general have somewhat of a bias to picking students with a couple of years out (at least at my university they do), and the people on this forum are simply trying to explain the reasons why faculty have this bias. Honestly, almost no one on this forum is actually a professor here who is picking the students. So, instead, we're all speculating about what they think. I'll say that my advisor has a strong bias against picking students straight out, and only does it once in awhile. Why? I mean, I think in general he believes that the students he interviews who are straight out tend to have less-defined research interests, less of a developed research-mind, a little less mature, the kind of stuff people are alluding to on this forum. There are students straight out of undergrad who do have this, and then those are the ones who get in. But this year (as last year), he decided he didn't want any of the straight-out ones right after the interview. And I think a number of faculty at my university (not all) feel the same way.

Furthermore, I think as faculty, many encourage their undergrads to take time off, to explore, gain experience, before applying to grad school. We do to our undergrads, and so did my undergrad advisor. I happen to think it's also good advice, and agree that my time off was completely valuable, and I wouldn't have done it differently.

 

[O Gurl]

Emotions aside now , I can definitely see how POIs may have their individual preferences, but am inclined to believe they make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. I think the gross generalizations made earlier in the thread is what got people so riled up. But... that is done.

 

[Salience]

There are many many ways for undergrads to strengthen their resumes to fit what many grad students have achieved. This includes taking graduate stats in during their undergraduate years (obviously have to test into that class), doing 1 or 2 summer research externships at different universities (maybe in slightly different areas than what they are doing at their home university), actively presenting at national conferences, being involved in research programs that facilitate undergrads to go straight into graduate school, having first author publications (at least in process). All undergrads I personally know who have gone straight into clinical programs have had all these on their CV. It's just a different approach; not that there is anything wrong with doing the undergrad route or the masters/post bac/ RA route (which is what I will probably end up taking as well). The whole premise of the argument that undergrads make less prepared doctoral students stems from the idea that they have not experienced what some others have experienced 1 or two years out of school; yet, I would argue that those same people may not necessarily fully understand that it is vice versa.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I was just taken aback by the attitude presented in this thread that people who do not take at least a year or two before grad school are somehow more mechanical, less developed, less well-rounded, etc. than people who did. In reading through these comments, I kept waiting for the compelling reason as to why this might be true, only to read things like vague references to maturity and life experience, real-world vs. academic bubbles, and deep understanding of MANOVA. Really? And then to read further and realize that a good number of these arguments were being raised by people who only took 1 or 2 years in between and worked in psychology in the meantime. (?) Not saying this applies to everyone, but it started to read like an attack on all who chose a different path from them. That is shocking coming from a group of intelligent and trained critical thinkers. It also just didn’t seem to fit with my experiences at whether in psychology or not. Plenty of people go straight to med school, law school, or study for their MBA right after undergrad. I thought that is what college is for- to set yourself on a path toward a career. What is it about psychology that makes it an exception? I hate to be cynical, but perhaps it is the acceptance rates.

I'm glad you mentioned this. An MBA is a great example of why someone takes time off between undergraduate and graduate training. The top MBA programs all but require applicants to have at least 3-4+ years of experience before applying because they want students that have real world experience to draw from and not just work in hypotheticals. As someone who considered this route, it really made a difference in not only my application for MBA programs, but also in my perspective about the function and utility of an MBA. Do applicants straight from undergrad get into a top MBA program...sure, but they are very rare. While this doesn't translate 100% to psychology, I think it is a worthwhile comparison.

 

[O Gurl]

(apologies for interjecting after I said I was getting past it )

Yes, the MBA is a worthwhile comparison, but when you are speaking about a degree in business that relies heavily on understanding the workings of a company from multiple levels, it makes sense that one should have solid work experience prior to jumping right into learning the nuts and bolts of starting/running a business. The practice of psychology, however, is a skill that is expected to be developed over time--time spent learning the theory and principles and time in practice (years spread out over practica, internship, post-doc). Not quite sure how the other work experiences are quite as useful in our case. Also, not to keep harping on the length of time, an MBA takes about 2 -3 years, so I'm sure people would not gripe as much about taking time in between. But taking a couple years on top of the 6-8 it will take to get the doctorate... not as appealing to some folks. And for understandable reasons.

 

[Ollie123]

Not sure I like the MBA comparison given most folks I know who have gotten them or are currently pursuing them basically view it as a social club that is invaluable for networking and a hoop to jump through that basically gets them into the VIP lounge of the business world, but openly admit they don't feel it gets them all that much in the way of actual skills. I like to think I'm getting a bit more out of my degree than that. This was my former career path too (though I jumped ship pretty early) so that's not just me hating on corporate america.

The issue of whether or not I "wish" was done sooner depends heavily on how the question was phrased. Heck, if I could have gotten my PhD at 18, learned everything I needed to know in it, and been making good money doing what I want to do ever since than awesome, but that's clearly not realistic. I don't have any regrets for taking a couple years off. I probably could have gotten into a funded PhD program straight out of undergrad, but like not one as good as my current program, so I have no regrets. Similarly, I'm taking my time in the current program...I could have rushed through but there are a large number of experiences I have available that I want to get that simply wouldn't be possible in a shorter time frame.

Anyways, I'll reiterate my point from before. Don't really care when people start, as long as they are truly ready. I think few people likely are right out of undergrad, but admissions stats reflect that. While I haven't seen it, I can picture psychology venturing down the path of an admissions "checklist" with people trying to build up their CV rather than actual qualifications - it could very well be trickling down the academic chain since it seems to be an increasing problem for new faculty...

 

[Skvader]

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.

This is pretty much my reasoning at the moment. I'm wrapping up my bachelors degree at one of the top public universities in the nation. I've had three internships, one of which has been with the VA Hospital for over a year. My GPA and GRE scores, combined with those experiences, were obviously enough to land me with two interviews for PsyD programs (NOT Alliant/Argosy/other programs people tend to complain about). I'm eager to go straight into graduate school because, frankly, I don't see how waiting would benefit me. What can I do with a bachelors degree? I could get a paid research position, based on my experiences... but in southern California, with the job market as it is, I would probably be searching for quite some time. In the meantime, I would have to get a job for $8/hr and live with my parents. If I can go straight into graduate school, and if the faculty members believe I am qualified... well, what the heck is wrong with that? Maybe I'll know a little less than the 25+ year old students who have had more exposure to certain measurements... but graduate school is going to teach me the basics, and I'll learn the rest through practicums/research/future internships. I honestly don't see how I would be at a major disadvantage, save for being less mature than older students (which is a judgment call that cannot be made based on age alone).
​

 

[psychphd4me]

I have taken time off and have gained research experience from a highly regarded academic/medical setting. However, I recently realized that where I am working is so highly regarded/funded, it is not going to do me any favors with certain aspects of grad school, namely stats. We have a full-time statistician on staff, and I basically gather the data and send it off to her.

Boy, am I going to miss her when I have to start figuring this out on my own.

Fortunately, I had taken my thesis out and reread it before my first interview. Sure enough, I was asked a stats-related question, and while I was mildly pulling the answer out of my...well...let's just say I used my methods section to answer the question, and I must not have been too off because I was offered admission to the program.

 

[StacyTXLPC]

I definitely feel this is a personal, case-by-case issue. I can't speak to the decisions made by younger students; those who entered a doctoral program immediately following undergrad. I earned a terminal MS at 23yo and became a licensed therapist. Now, 12 years later, I am considering returning for my PhD. So I am potentially an "older student" at 36 eek; perhaps this thread has veered off course.

I'd like to hear from any other students in the same boat - anyone in their mid-30's or older, with families, beginning this journey? Is this a pro or con in the application process? Does it hurt your chances to discuss your life experience, or family, in an interview? Will I look indecisive or flakey if I waited this long to decide I want a phd?

 

[PsycApplicant11]

Hm, it's been very interesting to read through this thread. I didn't realize there was such a stigma attached to entering graduate school straight out of undergrad. Let me just start by saying that I am a 21-year-old and will be graduating this May with a BA in psychology and a minor in business management after just three years. I will be starting in a school psychology PhD program in the fall with a concentration in neuropsychology. As an undergraduate I have worked closely (for a year and a half) with children suffering from autism, cerebral palsy, ADHD, ODD and others. I have also volunteered in a research lab, assisting with projects on a wide range of topics, including post-traumatic growth, eating disorders, and HIV-positive gay men. I even had the opportunity to co-author a manuscript. I have been exposed to many courses through my school's honors program, such as peace studies, classical argument, and music in the human imagination. This exposure has helped me to hone my scholarly interests and realize my goals in life. Despite my age, I feel that I have a rich, diverse background and have displayed initiative that will allow me to succeed in graduate school. Furthermore, I have developed time management skills that will allow for free time and will prevent me from getting completely overwhelmed. I've thought very seriously about graduate school and understand the implications of partaking in this arduous adventure that will consume my life for the next 5+ years. I interviewed at competitive clinical PhD programs and throughout the process I felt just as qualified as the "seasoned" applicants.

I think it is unfair to assume that younger applicants are not prepared because they have not experienced life outside of academia. However, I cannot speak to my own success in graduate school given that I will not be starting until the fall. So despite my previous rant, I guess I will have to let everyone know how my age and experience effect my journey. Regardless, it is important for everyone to remember that generalizations are never wise as they can lead to stereotypes. There are always exceptions.

 

[psychapps]

I'd like to hear from any other students in the same boat - anyone in their mid-30's or older, with families, beginning this journey? Is this a pro or con in the application process? Does it hurt your chances to discuss your life experience, or family, in an interview? Will I look indecisive or flakey if I waited this long to decide I want a phd?

I'm not quite mid-30s or older but almost there (34) and will be heading to a clinical Ph.D. program next fall. In my experience, I don't think my age was considered in a negative light by the POIs and faculty. It was a pleasant surprise, since I had had many of the same concerns you have.

Just for background, I had a completely unrelated career for about 10 years, then spent 3 years getting a terminal M.A. and some full-time research experience. It seems like everyone under the sun told me to prepare for the, "So why did you decide to switch careers?" question, but I honestly got that only once. The POIs were MUCH more interested in talking about my thesis, research experiences, ideas for future projects, etc.

I got the impression that their main concern was whether I had made a well-informed decision, obtained relevant experiences, and shown commitment to the field. I'm not trying to spark off further debate by saying this, but several of my POIs did explicitly mention that they value students with life experience. So I felt that, for some POIs, my age and background was a point in my favor.

In terms of the family issue, I found that my personal life only came up informally. It sort of naturally came up with current students when discussing stipends, apartments, and cost of living, but not much beyond that. In my case, I have a husband but no children, so I was concerned that the POI might worry about future pregnancy, etc. But I got the impression that if you show you know what you're getting into (5-6 years of hard work) and are committed to that path, then they're less concerned with the exact details of how that meshes with your family life. I applied to intense, research-heavy Ph.D. programs, so this was also a pleasant surprise.

Anyway, just one non-trad's experience....good luck with everything!

 

[Jegg]

I definitely feel this is a personal, case-by-case issue. I can't speak to the decisions made by younger students; those who entered a doctoral program immediately following undergrad. I earned a terminal MS at 23yo and became a licensed therapist. Now, 12 years later, I am considering returning for my PhD. So I am potentially an "older student" at 36 eek; perhaps this thread has veered off course.

I'd like to hear from any other students in the same boat - anyone in their mid-30's or older, with families, beginning this journey? Is this a pro or con in the application process? Does it hurt your chances to discuss your life experience, or family, in an interview? Will I look indecisive or flakey if I waited this long to decide I want a phd?

It hasn't hurt me thus far as a mid 30s career changer. In fact, I think it has helped me to mention my wife and children, as well as my background experiences.

I have personal experience with a successful intimate relationship with another person (12+ years) in a country where the divorce rate is 50 percent or higher. I have inside experience with watching three children go through developmental processes. I don't have to go out looking for new relationships or seeking people to date, and consequently I don't bring along with me any of the emotional messes that go with those activities. I have independent income and savings from my previous career that allow me to pursue a doctorate without needing to work and stress out about money, so I can focus all that extra time on family and doctoral work. Also, I have my previous experiences with a different field of study, computer science and advanced math, that to some interviewers is more valuable than an undergraduate degree in psychology. Likewise, I have multiple decades of life experiences. Fortunately, psychology is one of those fields that benefits from a diversity of background experience.

Personally I think these are great advantages, and interviewers who are established with a wife and family often relate to my situation. Likewise, an older student fills the needs of older patients at a school's clinic and at independent externship/internship sites.

Of course, there are also benefits to attending a doctoral program right out of college as well, and younger students are also a great resource. I think overall it is simply great to have a well-rounded cohort consisting of all ages and backgrounds. Personally, I get a kick out of being the old-man on campus. I was touring with the Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia when most people in my cohort were toddlers!

 

[AgapeBlue]

I definitely feel this is a personal, case-by-case issue. I can't speak to the decisions made by younger students; those who entered a doctoral program immediately following undergrad. I earned a terminal MS at 23yo and became a licensed therapist. Now, 12 years later, I am considering returning for my PhD. So I am potentially an "older student" at 36 eek; perhaps this thread has veered off course.

I'd like to hear from any other students in the same boat - anyone in their mid-30's or older, with families, beginning this journey? Is this a pro or con in the application process? Does it hurt your chances to discuss your life experience, or family, in an interview? Will I look indecisive or flakey if I waited this long to decide I want a phd?

Much like psychapps' experience, I've not noticed age being an issue. I'm in my early 40's and retired from the military, so my delay in chasing down the PhD was somewhat self-explanatory. What caused an issue for me was the drastic switch in fields of study and a 3 year absence from academia.

I'm married with no children, so family doesn't really come up for me.

One of my mentors began her PhD program at 44, and I have other friends who are in their mid 30's - 50's all working on a doctoral degree in either the mental health or medical field.

I think there are pros and cons with not being in your 20's, but so much depends upon your program and POI's. Some may appreciate your experience and perceived maturity, others may not see it that way.

I'm starting my grad program in the fall and met many of my future friends and co-horts at the open house last week. My age didn't come up save for a few who were asking advice about moving, preparing for grad work, if school easier when you've had a previous life outside of academia...etc.

The best advice I've received is from one of my post-bacc mentors. She told me, "You'll eventually be 50. You will be 50 with a PhD and your license, or you'll be 50 without your PhD and your license. But you'll be 50 either way."

No worries, you'll rock at whatever age you are when you apply. The important thing is that you do apply

 

[AgapeBlue]

Of course, there are also benefits to attending a doctoral program right out of college as well, and younger students are also a great resource. I think overall it is simply great to have a well-rounded cohort consisting of all ages and backgrounds. Personally, I get a kick out of being the old-man on campus. I was touring with the Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia when most people in my cohort were toddlers!

Excellent point.

 

[Lisa44201]

The best advice I've received is from one of my post-bacc mentors. She told me, "You'll eventually be 50. You will be 50 with a PhD and your license, or you'll be 50 without your PhD and your license. But you'll be 50 either way."

Amen. My younger sister just made the decision to go back for her DMA. While she was contemplating, she asked me if I thought she was too old, as she'd be 30 (heaven forbid!) when she got her degree. I asked her how old she'd be at that point if she didn't have her degree. It then occurred to her she'd be 30 either way.

 

[psychmama]

^ Well, it just so happens I'll be 50 this year and also got my PsyD earlier this Fall, so there you go!

 

[AgapeBlue]

Amen. My younger sister just made the decision to go back for her DMA. While she was contemplating, she asked me if I thought she was too old, as she'd be 30 (heaven forbid!) when she got her degree. I asked her how old she'd be at that point if she didn't have her degree. It then occurred to her she'd be 30 either way.

Good for both of you! Congrats on your little sis going after her DMA, and cool for you being such a wise big sis

Congrats Psychmama! I figure if Tina Turner is touring when she's in her late 60's, we can rock the psych world at least 'til our 70's...or 80's...

 

[purplebutterfly]

I definitely feel this is a personal, case-by-case issue. I can't speak to the decisions made by younger students; those who entered a doctoral program immediately following undergrad. I earned a terminal MS at 23yo and became a licensed therapist. Now, 12 years later, I am considering returning for my PhD. So I am potentially an "older student" at 36 eek; perhaps this thread has veered off course.

I'd like to hear from any other students in the same boat - anyone in their mid-30's or older, with families, beginning this journey? Is this a pro or con in the application process? Does it hurt your chances to discuss your life experience, or family, in an interview? Will I look indecisive or flakey if I waited this long to decide I want a phd?

I'm older than you... I can't see how your 12 years out of school could be anything but an asset, given that you were working in the field as a therapist. That will likely put you way ahead of most students in terms of clinical experience. If you're looking at PsyD programs, that might be a major advantage. Rather than considering it "indecisive or flakey" to work in the field for 12 years, you could emphasize that it was an opportunity for you to hone your skills as a therapist through which you gained clarity about what you wanted to do next to enhance your career.

 

[psychmama]

Congrats Psychmama! I figure if Tina Turner is touring when she's in her late 60's, we can rock the psych world at least 'til our 70's...or 80's...

Aw thanks! I feel like I have many years left to "hit my prime" as a psychologist.

 

[FadedC]

I'm also in my mid thirties, and I don't think this has hurt me at all. In fact I think in some ways it can help. When your on an interview trying to come off as being mature and experienced, it doesn't hurt to be an older guy with the hint of grey in your hair.

As for my cohort, many of them are extremely young, but I would never say that this makes them worse students. In fact most of them have lived and breathed academics for so long to get to this point that I would say they are often pretty amazing students and frequently better then me. I can say that many of them lacked life experience when they came into the program, and frequently had overly simplistic views of things. But by the time they get their license they will have have had plenty of time to age and mature.