PhD/PsyD Finding a "Balanced" Clinical PhD Program vs. a PsyD

[MWM88]

First post here on SDN; thanks in advance for any replies.

A bit of background: I am a senior at a decent state school. I've been trying to amass as many RA hours as possible, all while groping for TA positions and getting my name on studies, etc. etc. The whole rigamarole has really underscored for me how little I care for research and how I'd rather focus on clinical practice. Advice from teachers and other students has been universal: find a PsyD program.

However, I don't wish to pursue a PsyD unless absolutely necessary. No disrespect to the folks who've done so, but the enormous amounts of debt gives me the howling fantods. I've also read that PsyD programs have a perceptual sort of stigma, as well as poorer internship match rates.

I've recently started trolling SDN and have come across the term "balanced" when referring to clinical PhD programs. My understanding is that these "balanced" programs give (somewhat) equal emphasis to research and practice, or at least won't outright refuse your application if you admit to not being into research. This appeals to me, because I don't like the prospect of basically lying to a mentor/advisor about my areas of interest in order to gain access to a program (this advice has also been given to me numerous times, and I find it really bizarre and distasteful).

Now onto the specific question: I've been having a devil of a time finding out which schools are considered "balanced". Beyond looking at every individual school (I've done much of this, in fact it's what I'm doing up now at 7:00AM) and reading their program descriptions (which may or may not clarify) does anyone have any suggestions? Is there a reference or "master list" that someone's compiled of balanced programs? Anything specific to look for? If anyone has any experience or insight into this, I'd be really grateful.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bmedclinic]

I know of no "master" list of balanced programs. However, the program I attended considers itself balanced, and I'd say that's fairly accurate. If you want to be research heavy there, you can be, and if you want to be therapy heavy there, you can be (so long as you make sure to complete all your research oriented projects, so it's not as if you can simply not do those).

I think more than looking for a balanced program, it might help first to narrow down what area (not just clinical psych) you want to be in? For example, since there are likely too many balanced programs to simply list, perhaps explaining your interests or saying what programs you're interested in might help getting knowledgeable people to give feedback as to how balanced said programs actually may be.

 

[WisNeuro]

As bmed said, interests matter. For one thing, even if you don't want a research career, you will do research in any reputable program. The mix matters, but you'll have your thesis and dissertation as a minimum. So, you better pick something you're interested in, or it's going to be a long slog. After that, there are some indirect measures. You can look at the licensure rate of the school. Not a perfect predictor, but research powerhouse schools training solely academicians will likely have a lower percentage of licensed students. You could also look to see where students are going on internship, that'll be important in any program. Last, see what kind of clinical practicum they offer and what the clinical sequence is like.

Also as bmed said, far too many to list as a balanced clinical program is more the norm these days. Remember, the vast majority of Clinical PhD students go on to primarily clinical careers.

 

[psypipe]

Apart from what others have said regarding interest, you can use the Insiders Guide (Amazon product). They have a ranking that goes from practice oriented to research oriented. Look at the programs that score around a 4 and then search them individually to confirm. You want to look for descriptions that say things such as training future psychologist for careers in clinical practice or academia etc. etc.

 

[MiniLop]

What psypipe said. The book uses a 7-point scale, with 1 being pretty much all clinical training and 7 being pretty much all research (with only the bare minimum of required clinical training). Just go through the list of programs and write down the name of every program that ranks itself a 3, 4, or 5. Just be aware that it's rare to find fully-funded programs that rate themselves as less than a 4 (though a handful do exist). Be aware that even programs who rate themselves a 5 may view themselves as being principally for training researchers, so be sure to check the program's mission statement on their website after you've narrowed down your list of possible schools.

For the record, my program rated itself a 4 and it really does seem equally balanced between clinical and research training.

 

[pccgrad]

Why not just a counseling psychology phd?

 

[cara susanna]

I think my program was rated a 5 and it's very balanced. If anything, I'd say it skews clinical.

 

[MiniLop]

My understanding is that these "balanced" programs give (somewhat) equal emphasis to research and practice, or at least won't outright refuse your application if you admit to not being into research. This appeals to me, because I don't like the prospect of basically lying to a mentor/advisor about my areas of interest in order to gain access to a program (this advice has also been given to me numerous times, and I find it really bizarre and distasteful).

Also just a heads up: I doubt any balanced program would accept a student that says they're not that into research. Even if you're primarily interested in being a clinician, you would still be spending A LOT of time doing research, even in a balanced program. They want students who are interested in doing that kind of work and will thrive in that environment. Students that are just into clinical work will be viewed as unsuited for the program. Even the students in these programs who are planning to only be clinicians still have research interests and probably came into these programs with a ton of research experience. Without research interests and research experience, you'd have a very hard time getting into a balanced program.

 

[Sendtrees]

Regardless of whether a program is balanced or not, you will have a better chance getting in if you can find a research lab that is related to the RA work you've done so far. I think that all PhD programs, even the ones that would consider themselves research heavy, provide enough clinical training to get you to the next level--APA internship. A good PhD program wants you to graduate and do well. When I was applying for graduate school, I knew for a fact that I could never tolerate debt at the level a PsyD takes on (at that point the decision was purely financial, though of course I learned more reasons later), and so I applied to funded PhD programs. The PsyD might as well have not existed. If I hadn't gotten in anywhere, I would have regrouped and done something else. To get in, I focused my applications on specific professors (I hardly paid attention to the school or the program), made a case for my fit within their lab, and told them exactly what they wanted to hear--that I was interested in a career in research. At the time I wasn't sure that was true, and consider this--you're not sure, either. The work you're doing as an undergraduate RA, in one particular lab, does not tell the whole story. But even if you're totally sure that you want to end up as a clinician, it still is in your interest to embrace research as an applicant. If people urge you toward a PsyD because you'll be "happier" as a clinically minded student, consider whether you would rather be happy during grad school (a time when almost nobody is happy) or after. If I were you, I would apply for paid research assistant positions at the same time you apply to graduate school. Getting in this year is not as important as where you get in.

 

[bmedclinic]

Also just a heads up: I doubt any balanced program would accept a student that says they're not that into research. Even if you're primarily interested in being a clinician, you would still be spending A LOT of time doing research, even in a balanced program. They want students who are interested in doing that kind of work and will thrive in that environment. Students that are just into clinical work will be viewed as unsuited for the program. Even the students in these programs who are planning to only be clinicians still have research interests and probably came into these programs with a ton of research experience. Without research interests and research experience, you'd have a very hard time getting into a balanced program.

This is exactly true, as it relates to my doc program. I recall when I was in the program and we were interviewing students, at one point I think one of the "cooler" professors would talk to a small group and when people mentioned being luke warm on research, he'd start asking pretty frank follow up questions. Only one time, am I aware of a student gaining entrance after that conversation-- and to boot he was a "shoe in" (who know primarily does research!). He probably spent 25-30 hrs doing research when we were in school together (he was 2 years behind me in the program).

 

[MWM88]

Thanks for all the replies everyone... there are some really good points here.

I definitely understand that a lot of what I'll be doing is research. When I stated that I wouldn't want to have to "lie" about being into research, and that I didn't want to be turned away for not "being into" research, I should've been more specific:

A lot of programs I looked at wanted the applicant to cultivate a relationship with a specific graduate professor before even applying. They suggested that the applicant is basically applying to the professor, not the program, and that the bulk of the graduate experience would be working directly with said professor on said specific research project with nary a thought to anything else. While I understand that this emphasis on research is common, I was hoping for a more "balanced" experience; one where I was applying to a program in general, not just to be a certain professor's research assistant for five years. My question was more about how to find such programs if they exist. The Insider's Guide that has been mentioned seems like an excellent resource, and I look forward to checking it out!

Thanks again for all your replies, and if anyone has any other advice I'd love to hear it.

 

[WisNeuro]

Even in a balanced program, you will generally be working under a specific faculty mentor and be engaged in a line of research. You're still applying to a program, but that mentor program is still the norm. Balanced here means that clinical and research is more balanced, rather than favoring one over the other to a great extent.

 

[bmedclinic]

. While I understand that this emphasis on research is common, I was hoping for a more "balanced" experience; one where I was applying to a program in general, not just to be a certain professor's research assistant for five years. My question was more about how to find such programs if they exist. The Insider's Guide that has been mentioned seems like an excellent resource, and I look forward to checking it out!

Thanks again for all your replies, and if anyone has any other advice I'd love to hear it.

Wisnero is spot on; to add to it...
When you apply to work with Dr Amazos, Ph.D., in his Amazos research lab (or whatever), you also mention that because you enjoy research, would it be possible down the line to consider also working with Dr Wundaful with Dr Amazos permission? You may even ask if they collaborate. That gives you a feel for that program and lets them know that not only do you like research, but that you're not wishy-washy but also intellectually curious. It's also entirely fine to wait until you're in the program to explore this, too.

Now its possible other people completely disagree with me on this, but I've seen people do this in interviews and end up working with both professors later down the line, even though the two professors interests are not similar.

 

[WisNeuro]

Now its possible other people completely disagree with me on this, but I've seen people do this in interviews and end up working with both professors later down the line, even though the two professors interests are not similar.

Yes, common in some programs. I actually kind of had two mentors in grad school. My main mentor for the neuroscience aspects of my research, and then another with who I worked with on PTSD and trauma related issues. Other students in my programs also worked in a similar model depending on their projects (one main mentor, side mentor with other research).

 

[deleted343839]

A lot of programs I looked at wanted the applicant to cultivate a relationship with a specific graduate professor before even applying. They suggested that the applicant is basically applying to the professor, not the program, and that the bulk of the graduate experience would be working directly with said professor on said specific research project with nary a thought to anything else.

That's not quite right. Even in a research-intensive program there are still program-wide training experiences that apply to everyone - a core curriculum, practicum requirements, seminars, etc. What it feels like is belonging to two groups - you have your cohort of students who started in the same year (you're taking the same courses together, usually graduating within a year or so of one another, etc.) and your lab group (ie, everyone working under the same faculty member at a given time). For most people, both groups are important in their own ways. Your lab group is sort of like the scholarly version of a "college house," though more influential on your career.

What others are saying about working with multiple faculty is true; this is not a rare thing though it depends on the faculty in question. When I was in grad school, two of my lab mates had "co-mentors" for their research, and if I recall correctly this arrangement was made very early on. But what you're not going to see is a Ph.D. program that trains you to be a clinician and rotates you through faculty members' research projects. That long-term relationship with one, or at most two, mentors is what really helps you develop your skills as a researcher/scholar. It would be hard to get good research training any other way.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Couple of things I'd add to great advice above:
-Even programs that don't admit under a strict mentor model basically operate under one.
-Mentioning two faculty in your SOP may lead to you interviewing with both and getting an offer from one. Alternatively, you may get an offer from someone who you didn't note in your SOP but who was grabbed by something about your application.
-Even at mentor model programs, it's important to try to have good report and positive interview experiences with all the faculty (and student) interviews. They really do talk, especially with regards to admissions.
-Faculty are people and have their own web of interpersonal dynamics. Two faculty that seem well-matched on paper may have a not-great history with each other and may not work together (or may work together well and not friend each other on Facebook ). Alternatively, two faculty that don't seem academically related may be BFFs and work together more than you would expect because of it.

 

[EmotRegulation]

Mentor model programs also don't necessarily mean you will be a research slave to your PI for 5 years. Will you likely be involved with research in the lab for your graduate school tenure? Yes. But some professors are more "you will do my research work and little else" and others are more "hey, we do this kind of stuff, what do you want to add to this?" The idea is that you walk away from grad school with some independent research under your belt (e.g., dissertation) and some good experience collaborating and all that other good stuff.

You apply to a person because that person is interested in studying the same kinds of things you want to study. If you have varying interests, find a PI who does several things, and/or get a co-mentor as others have described. The idea is that you will get in-depth experience studying something that interests you!

 

[MWM88]

Why not just a counseling psychology phd?

A few reasons:
Sadly, nearly all Counseling PhD programs require that applicants first have an MA/MS in Counseling Psychology before applying. As I am coming straight out of undergraduate school, this option isn't really for me. I'd rather not do a 2-step approach (obtain an MA/MS, then apply for a PhD) and not many of these are funded (not to mention that the pre-req MA/MS is definitely not going to be funded).

 

[MWM88]

Thanks again to everyone for their advice and wisdom. Until I get my hands on the Insider's Guide, I'll continue to look (doggedly, non-stop), and although I haven't found the perfect fit yet, I have to believe that it's out there.

 

[MWM88]

This is exactly true, as it relates to my doc program. I recall when I was in the program and we were interviewing students, at one point I think one of the "cooler" professors would talk to a small group and when people mentioned being luke warm on research, he'd start asking pretty frank follow up questions. Only one time, am I aware of a student gaining entrance after that conversation-- and to boot he was a "shoe in" (who know primarily does research!). He probably spent 25-30 hrs doing research when we were in school together (he was 2 years behind me in the program).

This is exactly why I've been told, repeatedly, by peers and professors alike (!) to flat-out lie during the applications process. It is apparently an open secret that a majority of PhD candidates do research simply because it's part of being a PhD candidate, and simply feign interest in order to gain admittance. This is unsurprising given that something like 70% of PhDs end up becoming licensed, practicing psychologists anyway. This is why a more "balanced" program appeals to me: not because I'd be able to be truthful about my lack of interest in research during the application process, but rather that if I'm accepted I won't just be a glorified research assistant for 5+ years.

 

[Goobernut]

A few reasons:
Sadly, nearly all Counseling PhD programs require that applicants first have an MA/MS in Counseling Psychology before applying. As I am coming straight out of undergraduate school, this option isn't really for me. I'd rather not do a 2-step approach (obtain an MA/MS, then apply for a PhD) and not many of these are funded (not to mention that the pre-req MA/MS is definitely not going to be funded).

Just to clarify, there is a difference between counseling PhD programs and counseling psychology PhD programs. Many counseling psychology PhD programs do not follow the 2-step approach that you list above. Some do, but many of the ones I looked into did not require a master's.

 

[PreDrANB]

A lot of programs I looked at wanted the applicant to cultivate a relationship with a specific graduate professor before even applying. They suggested that the applicant is basically applying to the professor, not the program, and that the bulk of the graduate experience would be working directly with said professor on said specific research project with nary a thought to anything else. While I understand that this emphasis on research is common, I was hoping for a more "balanced" experience; one where I was applying to a program in general, not just to be a certain professor's research assistant for five years. My question was more about how to find such programs if they exist. The Insider's Guide that has been mentioned seems like an excellent resource, and I look forward to checking it out!

Thanks again for all your replies, and if anyone has any other advice I'd love to hear it.

Every balanced program I have looked into also wants you to indicate a specific faculty member with whom you would like to work. They are still going to assign you to a specific faculty adviser for the duration of your doctoral studies. I'm actually pretty certain that PsyD programs do the same. In a balanced program, you'll have a research adviser and a clinical adviser and spend time with both.

Additionally, the Insider's Guide is a LIFE SAVER. You should run not walk to the bookstore and buy it now.

Best of luck!

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

First post here on SDN; thanks in advance for any replies.

A bit of background: I am a senior at a decent state school. I've been trying to amass as many RA hours as possible, all while groping for TA positions and getting my name on studies, etc. etc. The whole rigamarole has really underscored for me how little I care for research and how I'd rather focus on clinical practice. Advice from teachers and other students has been universal: find a PsyD program.

However, I don't wish to pursue a PsyD unless absolutely necessary. No disrespect to the folks who've done so, but the enormous amounts of debt gives me the howling fantods. I've also read that PsyD programs have a perceptual sort of stigma, as well as poorer internship match rates.

I've recently started trolling SDN and have come across the term "balanced" when referring to clinical PhD programs. My understanding is that these "balanced" programs give (somewhat) equal emphasis to research and practice, or at least won't outright refuse your application if you admit to not being into research. This appeals to me, because I don't like the prospect of basically lying to a mentor/advisor about my areas of interest in order to gain access to a program (this advice has also been given to me numerous times, and I find it really bizarre and distasteful).

Now onto the specific question: I've been having a devil of a time finding out which schools are considered "balanced". Beyond looking at every individual school (I've done much of this, in fact it's what I'm doing up now at 7:00AM) and reading their program descriptions (which may or may not clarify) does anyone have any suggestions? Is there a reference or "master list" that someone's compiled of balanced programs? Anything specific to look for? If anyone has any experience or insight into this, I'd be really grateful.

Even if you ultimately wish to practice (rather than teach or do research) I think that attending a clinical PhD program might be something you look back on years hence and be glad you did. The application of theories in clinical psychology to day-to-day practice is NOT analogous to the application of biochemical/anatomic/physiological theories (and research) to treat relatively well-defined categorical diagnostic 'illnesses/disorders' as might be the case in medicine. I think that the day-to-day practice of the average physician is FAR more that of a highly skilled technician applying such technology (and most of it protocol-driven) than the average effective practicing clinical psychologist. It is just my opinion but I truly believe that it is in the best interest of anyone who wishes to practice psychology to get at least a few years under their belt becoming very familiar with the processes by which the scientific method is applied (and very often mis-applied) in efforts to try to ask and answer fundamental questions regarding 'which treatment, for which patient, under what conditions' is most effective. And, if you wish to practice with a particular population (e.g., anxiety disorders, mood disorders, eating disorders?) then I can think of no better preparation (initially) for practicing with your population of choice than a firm grounding in 'what we know or think we know about the etiology, maintenance, and treatment of' said condition that you would likely get by attending an institution with an active research lab studying that population. Where I trained, it was a combination research/treatment (therapy) treatment clinic and I imagine many if not most such clinics also have an applied aspect to their research endeavors.