"R1 institution"

[JeyRo]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_I_university

I hear the term a lot and I had some vague idea as to what it meant (confers some elite status to a university is the way I understood it), was surpised to find out apparently the term is considered "no longer valid." The accepted term (with apparently somewhat different criteria) is "Doctoral/research universities-extensive".

Somehow doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as "R1".

Anyways, I have no point to my post. I just thought that was interesting.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_I_university

I hear the term a lot and I had some vague idea as to what it meant (confers some elite status to a university is the way I understood it), was surpised to find out apparently the term is considered "no longer valid." The accepted term (with apparently somewhat different criteria) is "Doctoral/research universities-extensive".

Somehow doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as "R1".

Anyways, I have no point to my post. I just thought that was interesting.

Yeah, I noticed this maybe a month or two back as well. My guess is that people stick with R1 for the reason you listed (it's much, much easier to say than the newly-"approved" term).

 

[roubs]

I think we often use it to identify which programs are the most research intense because some applicants want to identify programs that offer a Ph.D. with a more balanced approach, when the ones with the highest profiles are unsurprisingly the "R1" schools

We could probably just point to this list

http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/index.php?page=members

And say any Ph.D. program not on that list is likely more "balanced" between clinical / research than the research intensive clinical science programs. Thoughts?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I think we often use it to identify which programs are the most research intense because some applicants want to identify programs that offer a Ph.D. with a more balanced approach, when the ones with the highest profiles are unsurprisingly the "R1" schools

We could probably just point to this list

http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/index.php?page=members

And say any Ph.D. program not on that list is likely more "balanced" between clinical / research than the research intensive clinical science programs. Thoughts?

That's a great place to start, although to avoid confusion and remain as accurate as possible, maybe we should just start referring to the more research-heavy programs by saying "APCS members" rather than "R1 institutions." After all, there are some R1 schools that aren't APCS members and/or that offer more of a 50/50 research/clinical split.

 

[roubs]

That's a great place to start, although to avoid confusion and remain as accurate as possible, maybe we should just start referring to the more research-heavy programs by saying "APCS members" rather than "R1 institutions." After all, there are some R1 schools that aren't APCS members and/or that offer more of a 50/50 research/clinical split.

Yep, agree that APCS members is more accurate. I also notice a few APCS member programs where the university as a whole isn't listed as "Very heavy" research emphasis by Carnegie (which seems to be the modern day R1?)

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Yep, agree that APCS members is more accurate. I also notice a few APCS member programs where the university as a whole isn't listed as "Very heavy" research emphasis by Carnegie (which seems to be the modern day R1?)

Also very true, good point. I think the "very heavy"/R1 descriptor can still certainly be useful, as it may speak to the graduate culture of the university as a whole, and/or to the ability of students to attend things like cross-disciplinary grant writing workshops. But at the same time, as we've pointed out, R1 status doesn't necessarily equate to a research-heavy psych department, just like a research-heavy psych department can occur outside of R1 programs.

 

[KillerDiller]

I think we often use it to identify which programs are the most research intense because some applicants want to identify programs that offer a Ph.D. with a more balanced approach, when the ones with the highest profiles are unsurprisingly the "R1" schools

We could probably just point to this list

http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/index.php?page=members

And say any Ph.D. program not on that list is likely more "balanced" between clinical / research than the research intensive clinical science programs. Thoughts?

With a few notable exceptions, I guess. I'm shocked that University of Michigan isn't on that list. I consider them more research heavy than several of the schools that are on there. Texas A&M as well.

 

[Ollie123]

With a few notable exceptions, I guess. I'm shocked that University of Michigan isn't on that list. I consider them more research heavy than several of the schools that are on there. Texas A&M as well.

Actually U Mich didn't shift to a "clinical science" model until very recently, so I am not too surprised about them. Anecdotally, I'd heard that their clinical area (in contrast to the rest of the department) actually had a VERY mediocre reputation for quite some time according to a number of different sources - though one that seems to be significantly improving in recent times (probably in part facilitated by the shift to a clinical science model). Seems they are moving in that direction though and given the reputation of the university as a whole and the resources available there, I would not be surprised in the slightest to see them joining the ranks of Academy programs in the near future.

One precaution regarding use of APCS - its unclear exactly what the ongoing status of the Academy will be, and to what degree this will be supplanted by the PCSAS accreditation system. Just one important consideration.

 

[deliciousgoose]

I think we often use it to identify which programs are the most research intense because some applicants want to identify programs that offer a Ph.D. with a more balanced approach, when the ones with the highest profiles are unsurprisingly the "R1" schools

We could probably just point to this list

http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/index.php?page=members

And say any Ph.D. program not on that list is likely more "balanced" between clinical / research than the research intensive clinical science programs. Thoughts?

I find it interesting that the University of Toronto is on that list as they do not have a clinical psychology PhD.

 

[thewesternsky]

I find it interesting that the University of Toronto is on that list as they do not have a clinical psychology PhD.

This is for their Clinical Research Extension Program. It's not APA/CPA accredited, but some of their students do go on to become registered psychologists.

 

[deliciousgoose]

This is for their Clinical Research Extension Program. It's not APA/CPA accredited, but some of their students do go on to become registered psychologists.

I know about CLEX but if it's not CPA/APA accredited and isn't a clinical psychology program, it seems that it shouldn't be grouped with clinical psychology PhDs.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Actually U Mich didn't shift to a "clinical science" model until very recently, so I am not too surprised about them.

I am surprised that they were anything but a research-focused training program. I know a couple of current students there, and they slant quite heavily to the research side of things. I hope they consider joining the APCS, as similar R1 institutions (Harvard, UCLA, etc) are currently pursuing membership.

 

[thewesternsky]

I know about CLEX but if it's not CPA/APA accredited and isn't a clinical psychology program, it seems that it shouldn't be grouped with clinical psychology PhDs.

I agree, but apparently the Academy does not (because UT/CLEX is a member).