PSYCAS - centralized application service?

[metta.cognition]

I just learned of this, and a quick search of the forums returned zero results. "PSYCAS" seems to be an APA-endorsed centralized application for graduate programs. It sounds like it allows an applicant to fill out one application, send in one set of transcripts, and then choose multiple programs from a list in order to be considered for those programs.

http://www.apa.org/education/grad/psycas.aspx

From what I can gather, it's been around for just one application cycle. Four programs participated in that cycle, and then it was announced that PSYCAS would be temporarily closed to additional programs while the results of this "soft launch" were considered.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/02/psycas-launch.aspx

As an applicant, this concept sounds attractive to me. Fewer moving parts. Less chance of transcripts arriving at the wrong address. Less wrestling with multiple program websites in varying levels of clunkiness.

If many more programs bought in to such a concept, though, would it water down the pool of applicants that adcoms are presented with? That is, would it be more likely that an applicant, who would have otherwise applied to 10 programs, would create a PSYCAS account, shrug, and click on 30 programs as a sort of "throwing darts" strategy to gaining admission in a competitive field? If enough applicants did this, would it result in published admission rates that are even lower than they are now, which would in turn make that same applicant click on 60 programs next cycle? Then what? Chaos? Doom and gloom? Real-life Hunger Games and vindication for doomsday preppers?

What are the pros and cons that others see?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Meh, those applicants applying willy nilly would tend to be the "less attractive" candidates. Those are applications that don't really get considered anyway. All it would do would create more work for the person or committee doing the first triage of applications. If I were a program, I would set harder limits on a few gatekeeper requirements if this passes (GPA >x, GRE scores >X) to cut down on the chaff, and so that we would not even have to lookat those apps in the first place.

 

[MCParent]

It wouldn't really increase the number of apps. Applicants would still have to pay the $50-$150 or whatever it now application fees. No way would programs sign onto this if it lost the application fee.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I like the idea if for nothing else, it becomes a centralized dumping station for application material. Similar systems works very well for APPIC (replaced GRE or GPA with intervention or supervision hours). I'm not sure why this shouldn't be done the same way for applications.

 

[irish80122]

I have heard a fair bit about this new system at some of my DCT meetings. Overall, I would say the DCT response to it has been negative, hence why it is currently on hiatus. Our worries about the system are several. First, it isn't the program that gets the application fee, it is typically the graduate school, but MCParent is absolutely correct that graduate schools are not likely to give up that fee. Given this, students would need to pay an application fee to both PSYCAS and to each school's graduate school. The case has been made that since you would only need to send your GREs and transcripts once (to PSYCAS), that it may end up in a wash. However, most of us calculate that it would cost the student several hundred dollars more per cycle, which makes me nervous.

We also have had concerns about whether or not it would interface with all of our admissions systems. Frankly our admissions website is not overly fancy, and I have a feeling it may be homemade. Would the university support PSYCAS if the field went that way? I don't know, we are only one department, and it is difficult to get an entire graduate school to change to accommodate one department accepting just a handful of doctoral students per year.

The idea has potential, but its execution needs to be right. APA has already come out saying that they will not make money on the system, but the fees are still high. Many DCTs have recommended that APA consider another supplier who can develop a similar system at a lower price to the students. We will see if that happens or not, but rest well that APA is not taking the application fee beyond paying expenses in order to be income neutral.

In general, I am hesitant whenever there is only one show in town, I don't think it results in the best product. I think the MyPsychTrack vs Time2Track battle has shown that. The big powers that be got behind MyPsychTrack despite it having issues, and from what I can tell it still is having problems. There is little incentive to improve if you are the only show in town. I just hope lessons have been learned with PSYCAS if it actually does come to fruition.

 

[cara susanna]

They tested out a standardized post-doctoral application system earlier this year, and it was an absolute mess.

 

[WisNeuro]

If it's anything like the standardized post-doctoral application system they tested out earlier this year, it will be a mess.

The APPACAS thing got somewhat mixed reviews, although it trended more positive than negative (I work with one of the admins of it). Seems like they'll work on ironing out the bugs of that rather than scrapping it. It works pretty well on our end (reviewing Apps).

 

[Justanothergrad]

I'm hopeful for centralization, but we definitely don't need to jump on open support of things before they are ready. Seeing how often schools lost things, didn't get things, etc during application cycles, there has to be a centralized way. Either way, I think that this should be/needs to be the direction we head once the issues (payment, functionality, etc) get mapped out. Irish, you are entirely right about MyPsychTrack. It isn't getting better because there is no motivation (behaviorism at is finest); It has so many problems and if I wasn't about to be finished with it for internship applications I would run away screaming.

It's interesting hearing perspectives of those on the other side.

 

[chicandtoughness]

I would be more in support for a centralized system if Psychology were considered a "professional" degree. That's why AMCAS and PCAS and VMCAS and SOPHAS all work so well - the applicants are paying for professional-level education.

But with PhD programs, it's much more about fit, finding a suitable faculty member to work under, seeing how you mesh with the department, etc. When more personalized items like this come in, it's hard to have a centralized system. AMCAS and the like focus on the you presented on paper. The PhD is a whole 'nother type of graduate degree that can't - and shouldn't - just look at stats and CVs. It's more like applying to a job than school. I don't see there being centralized application systems for jobs in the real world (not counting internship), so that's why a PSYCAS would be difficult to implement.

 

[cara susanna]

The APPACAS thing got somewhat mixed reviews, although it trended more positive than negative (I work with one of the admins of it). Seems like they'll work on ironing out the bugs of that rather than scrapping it. It works pretty well on our end (reviewing Apps).

I know some sites who had some problems with it, too. I'm sure someday it will be fine, but it just wasn't ready last year. There were so many problems on the applicant end.

 

[WisNeuro]

A doctorate in psychology is considered a professional degree. In general, by credentialing offices in hospital, etc.

 

[chicandtoughness]

A doctorate in psychology is considered a professional degree. In general, by credentialing offices in hospital, etc.

I'm aware, but not at the university level where applications are being made. Unless you count a PsyD, I suppose.

 

[WisNeuro]

I still fail to see why that precludes it from benefiting from a centralized application system in theory.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Meh, those applicants applying willy nilly would tend to be the "less attractive" candidates. Those are applications that don't really get considered anyway. All it would do would create more work for the person or committee doing the first triage of applications. If I were a program, I would set harder limits on a few gatekeeper requirements if this passes (GPA >x, GRE scores >X) to cut down on the chaff, and so that we would not even have to lookat those apps in the first place.

I'm generally wary of hard cutoffs for evaluation of applications, especially in a field that is so product-based. If you can produce high quality research and have some decent introductory clinical experience, I'd care more about that than if you got an 1100 (or whatever, under the newfangled system) on the GRE, A poster here once described there program as using general cut-offs for GRE/GPA but also looking at all the CVs who didn't make those cutoffs to make sure they weren't throwing out a well-fitting "gem." That seems very reasonable to me, especially because psych programs have far fewer applicants than medical schools, and are, again, much more product-based than didactic. One of the best grad student researchers I know really struggled on the quant section of the GRE but did very well in grad school in all domains, got a very competitive post-doc, and just got a publication in a top tier journal.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm generally wary of hard cutoffs for evaluation of applications, especially in a field that is so product-based. If you can produce high quality research and have some decent introductory clinical experience, I'd care more about that than if you got an 1100 (or whatever, under the newfangled system) on the GRE, A poster here once described there program as using general cut-offs for GRE/GPA but also looking at all the CVs who didn't make those cutoffs to make sure they weren't throwing out a well-fitting "gem." That seems very reasonable to me, especially because psych programs have far fewer applicants than medical schools, and are, again, much more product-based than didactic. One of the best grad student researchers I know really struggled on the quant section of the GRE but did very well in grad school in all domains, got a very competitive post-doc, and just got a publication in a top tier journal.

I was speaking more to having a suggested cutoff in general, but having a hard cutoff (i.e., your chances of getting into a reputable program with a <2.8GPA are next to nil) as not making it to the review stage as a time saving process. There are soft cutoffs, and then there are hard cutoffs.