Clinical vs. Research PhD

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
P

PsychisFun

New Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Members don't see this ad.
I am not sure exactly what area of psych I want to go into, I do know I want to pursue a doctorate though. One of my undergrad professors told me if I go into a non-clinical program, for instance a program with an emphasis in psychopathology or developmental psych, and I later chose to become a clinical psychologist I would be able to take extra classes for a year or two (at alliant for example) and be able to take the licensing exam in my state (california). Is this true? Or do I need to make the decision now to pursue clinical vs. research based psych and once I make the decision I would have to re-apply to a clinical program if I changed my mind a few years down the road?
 
It is certainly easier and less time consuming to make the decision before going. A clincial Ph.d is most versatile, as you can do pure research when you get done (although getting faculty jobs requires that you have really proven yourself as a solid researcher during grad school), although you will certianly have to the clinical training component during grad school. Clinical respecialization programs are not cheap....especially the one at Alliant. Clinical respecialization programs generally take 2+1 (2 years of prac work and one internship year)...not just 2 years.
 
Last edited:
It may depend on where you want to go and how it works there but where I go, there are 6 practicum classes that we have to take and they are given over the course of 3 years and have to be taken in a chronological order. So going back after having a research PhD would involve 4 years (1 whole year of internship). That's what it would look like here in Quebec.

I was hesitating between the two too, but decided to go for the PhD in clinical psychology, which is kind of a mix between a PhD in psychology and a DPsy.

It all depends on what you'd like to do though. There's no point in getting a PhD if you want to focus on clinical work. You could still get a doctorate and avoid the extensive focus on research.
 
mountaindrew said:
It may depend on where you want to go and how it works there but where I go, there are 6 practicum classes that we have to take and they are given over the course of 3 years and have to be taken in a chronological order. So going back after having a research PhD would involve 4 years (1 whole year of internship). That's what it would look like here in Quebec.

I was hesitating between the two too, but decided to go for the PhD in clinical psychology, which is kind of a mix between a PhD in psychology and a DPsy.

It all depends on what you'd like to do though. There's no point in getting a PhD if you want to focus on clinical work. You could still get a doctorate and avoid the extensive focus on research.
Click to expand...

Why would you say this? Remember, the vast vast majority of Ph.D. students in clinical psych go into clinical careers. I think the traditional scientist-practitioner model poses several benefits to clinical training actually. More prac hours doesn't not necessarily equal better clinicians.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, well, there could be a point, it's not completely useless. I know many who have done it but a good portion of them think it involves a LOT of work and sometimes regret it. It's mostly a matter of choice/priority and if it's going to be relevant. I can't judge someone who does it though since I'm getting a PhD in clinical psych and plan on doing fundamental research in child psychology. Everyone's say on that matter is "do as I say, not as I do"...
 
Many Ph.d programs are balanced and do not necessarily stress one over the other for an individual's career. However, I do think that research (not just producing it) and the skills set is builds helps us to become better clinical scientists....and better clinicians.
 
erg923 said:
It is certainly easier and less time consuming to make the decision before going. A clincial Ph.d is most versatile, as you can do pure research when you get done (although getting faculty jobs requires that you have really proven yourself as a solid researcher during grad school), although you will certianly have to the clinical training component during grad school. Clinical respecialization programs are not cheap....especially the one at Alliant. Clinical respecialization programs generally take 2+1 (2 years of prac work and one internship year)...not just 2 years.
Click to expand...


erg makes a good point -- it's not just the respecialization programs coursework, it's also getting enough supervised clinical training via practica, and then doing the internship (and getting a good one, since they are competitive!) which is another year. you're not going to shave that much time off the time it'd take to just do the clinical phd. and clinical psychologists can do developmetal, social, cog., personality, vision, etc research. not all programs will have the same resources, so that'd be a factor when looking at programs, (and there are dev. cog, etc phds that do research on "clinical" pops) so research wise if you do one you are not cut off of doing research with the other.
 
erg923 said:
Many Ph.d programs are balanced and do not necessarily stress one over the other for an individual's career. However, I do think that research (not just producing it) and the skills set is builds helps us to become better clinical scientists....and better clinicians.
Click to expand...
Well, I asked a lot of people about the differences between the programs and the bottom line was that PhD in clinical psych was mainly to be able to do research on clinical and fundamental aspects, PhD in psych was the route if you'd want to research in a fundamental field and DPsy was for those who wanted to do clinic.

The PhD in clinical psych was not seen as "balanced" by anyone though and I've asked profs and students. It's time consuming and pretty intense and it was seen as a compromise from clinicians and fundamental researchers (because we can't specialize than if we'd chose just one field, or just because we have less credits for the thesis than those who get a PhD in psych). So I don't think the PhD in clinical psych is that balanced unless you want to be involved in university-level clinic and clinical research. Everyone else saw it as a compromise instead.

I am mostly reporting what everyone said btw, I still chose to take the "compromise" road though.
 
mountaindrew said:
It all depends on what you'd like to do though. There's no point in getting a PhD if you want to focus on clinical work. You could still get a doctorate and avoid the extensive focus on research.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but I think you are wrong. There are a number of good reasons to get the Ph.D. even if you only want to become a clinician.

I won't get into the details though because that box of worms has been opened enough times in this forum.

Mark
 
Its true that things might be different in Canada, but in the US there are many programs that are considered "balanced." I am in a Ph.D. and we are fairly clinically oriented, with (as with most ph.D students in the US) most of our grads holding clinical positions and/or careers. Yes, there is a heavy resesarch component, but again, this is NOT conceptualized as a seperate entity in my program. Its part of building a well rounded clinical scientist. This IS what you are, even if you are purely a clinician.

I in no way feel that I have sacrificed any clinical skills or training within this model, because again, one skill-set feeds the development of the other. And vice versa. Moreover, scores on the licensing exam are typically higher (on average) for Ph.d grads vs Psy.D grads in the US. I do not think anything is being sacrificed here unless you choose a purely research concentrated route within your clinical ph.d program.
 
Last edited:
How are Canadian programs not balanced? We don't have PsyD schools; where do the Clinical Psych practitioners come from?

The PhD = only for research thing has been done to death on the forum. It's incorrect.

I agree with Erg; Sci-prac is not about picking a point on a continuum, it's an orientation towards the field.
 
Markp said:
I hate to say it, but I think you are wrong. There are a number of good reasons to get the Ph.D. even if you only want to become a clinician.

I won't get into the details though because that box of worms has been opened enough times in this forum.

Mark
Click to expand...

Would you mind PMing them to me? I've already made the decision to go for a PhD, but I'm curious.
 
I'm still trying to figure out where the "PhD = researcher only" stuff is coming from. Who is putting forth these ideas? Is it people outside the field? Is this some rumor started by a few undergrads who didn't actually research graduate school that just got out of hand? People DO know that there were practicing psychologists for decades before the PsyD ever came about, right?

That, and all this discussion of intensity makes it sound like the PsyD is a lesser degree. I've made it abundantly clearly I think that's becoming the case for certain institutions, but I don't think that was the intent of the degree.

Obviously, one shouldn't go to Wisconsin-Madison if their ultimate goal is to open a private practice. However there are plenty of PhD programs whose focus is on training clinicians. I'm confused whenever I see posts from people who seem concerned about money, yet didn't even look at PhD programs. There's plenty of programs that produce great clinicians (and yes, even focus on doing so), and also offer full funding.
 
I think that's how it's taught to people: PhD = research, PsyD = practice.
 
Although the research load is indeed heavier in a Ph.D.....the practice VS research distinction is false. They really shouldn't be pitted against each other anyway. It supposed to be an integrative construct, where one skills-set feeds the building of the other. Doctoral level education is not a trade school, where you are set up for only one environment. There are a few key differences to the orientation of the Vale model vs the traditional scientist-practitioner models. Like Ollie said, except for certain institutions, I do NOT view the Psy.D as any kind of lesser degree. Although I do tend to disagree with some of the assumptions of the Vail model...or more so....the view that many students have of the Psy.D. and how this is somehow a superior model for those with clinical interests.
 
Last edited:
I'm in a PsyD program (Rutgers) and we were required to read and study a number of journal articles about the history of the origins of the Vail model as part of our core curriculum. I would certainly agree that PhD programs often do an excellent job of turning out clinicians -- as mentioned, they were doing this for years before the PsyD came into existence. Moreover, I can understand some of the resistance in the field to the PsyD, including accusations that it lacks the rigor of the PhD due to less emphasis on research.

As many have pointed out, however, there are vast differences within PsyD programs and within Phd programs. I personally was accepted to a PhD program as well as to my PsyD program. I chose Rutgers because it was, frankly, a better school than the other school offering a PhD. Also, I'm not terribly research-minded and have always wanted to be a therapist first and foremost. So for me, the choice made a lot of sense.

Ironically, I've learned a lot about research in my PsyD program and I've come to appreciate it more. Not all psychologists will spend careers generating research, but all will need to be educated consumers of the emerging research in the field. In my view, a good PsyD program should teach its students to be astute research consumers -- to have a critical eye when reading journal articles or attending conferences about the latest and greatest treatment approach. This is an important point that is often overlooked in the whole PsyD/PhD discussion.
 
cara susanna said:
I think that's how it's taught to people: PhD = research, PsyD = practice.
Click to expand...

Which is why we need threads like this to help people figure out that it isn't nearly that cut and dry. A proper grounding in research is very important for analytical skills, as well as being able to understand and work with research....which is the foundation of informing the clinician.

I am a big supporter of balanced programs (whether it is a Ph.D. that offers good therapy training, or a Psy.D. that requires research and ensures their students are grounded in research in addition to the therapy side).
 
I agree. I'm just saying I think that's why the misconception is so common.

A good balance between the two is really important, IMO.
 
cara susanna said:
I think that's how it's taught to people: PhD = research, PsyD = practice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I guess what I'm wondering is WHO is teaching people that.
I find it hard to believe faculty wouldn't know after going through the system, although maybe I'm giving some folks too much credit. Is it academic advisors?

I just don't know where that's coming from.
 
In a lot of cases it is the schools offering the PhD programs. I have been told not to tell faculty members that I am really interested in clinical practice. They want people who are research-oriented. I'm afraid that PhD programs won't really consider me because with very little research experience, and a non-thesis master's degree, even with a 3.96 GPA, and a lot more clinical experience than graduates straight from undergraduate programs would likely have, I don't look research-oriented enough. Even though I am interested in research and hope to have opportunities to teach, and also to write some books. I need balance. Too much of any one thing would drive me nuts after a while.
 
Rapunzel said:
In a lot of cases it is the schools offering the PhD programs. I have been told not to tell faculty members that I am really interested in clinical practice. They want people who are research-oriented. I'm afraid that PhD programs won't really consider me because with very little research experience, and a non-thesis master's degree, even with a 3.96 GPA, and a lot more clinical experience than graduates straight from undergraduate programs would likely have, I don't look research-oriented enough. Even though I am interested in research and hope to have opportunities to teach, and also to write some books. I need balance. Too much of any one thing would drive me nuts after a while.
Click to expand...

I really think this is too overly generalized a statement. It is true that there are programs where you will be actively frowned upon for wanting to be a clinician. But, more so at the big league research schools and clinical science model type schools though. Remember, most Ph.D grads DO go into clinical oriented careers. I am in a Ph.D program and no one here goes around whispering about the "closet clinicians" in our program as if it were some dirty little secret or somehow negative. No one cares about that here, and all of our our faculty are good about letting us tailor our experiences to our ultimate career goals. And their are many program like this. That being said, when you're applying and trying to get in somewhere, I would NOT write in a personal statement how badly you want a private practice. They need to see that you have a research focus and can be dedicated too it. It doesn't mean you have to lie about things though. Simply play up the research interests you do have, and don't rave and rave about your ambition for private practice.
 
Last edited:
Rapunzel said:
In a lot of cases it is the schools offering the PhD programs. .
Click to expand...


Yes, but which schools were those? If they were research-oriented programs that makes sense. Are they saying "Don't say it if you apply here" or "Don't say it anywhere"?

I find it hard to believe Montana, Auburn, etc. would be saying things like that. Obviously there may be some variation within schools too based off faculty, but I sifted through plenty of programs that clearly had a goal of producing clinicians. Most schools make it fairly obvious on their website if they are more practice or research oriented, but admittedly not all do and I think that's a problem.
 
I would only like to say that we've talked about programs at my university and I was actually misinformed because of the fact that in my university we have a DPsy and also something called "PhD in psychology (research and intervention)" which is NOT similar to the PhD in psychology or the one in clinical psychology available elsewhere. I pretty much think that only my university and the University of Montreal have these.
 
Okay I've just skimmed through this thread so far, but I wanted to say that the clinical psychology phD program I'm in is very balanced between clinical and research work. Of course I'm biased towards the PhD because I'm in a phD program, but most people go on to practice. Other programs I applied to were more research focused. I applied to the program I'm in because they don't pressure us to go into research careers. In fact, some of my instructors have a private practice. It really varies from place to place.
 
I would say be extremely careful about applying to clinical doctorate programs if you want strong research training. Not that heavy clinical research programs aren't out there, but there is a lot of research "posturing" that goes on to cover up a mostly practitioner emphasis.
 
I dont know if you're in grad school already or not, but I think most people on this board would agree that the real "emphasis" in ph.d program is whatever you make it.

Mine is heavy research, but I have little interest in research focused positions after grad school. Because of this, I have more clinical hours than alot of the other students in my lab because ive taken heavier practicums rather than sleeping in our lab. Similarly, many many prolific reserachers come from mid-tier programs. We can't all go to Minnesota ya know, and the researchers do have to come from somewhere. In the end, Its your career, not theirs.
 
Illuminist said:
I would say be extremely careful about applying to clinical doctorate programs if you want strong research training. Not that heavy clinical research programs aren't out there, but there is a lot of research "posturing" that goes on to cover up a mostly practitioner emphasis.
Click to expand...

I think the program that really stands out as very research-oriented is Washington University at St. Louis.
 
Many programs are very research oriented. WUSTL is definitely one, but I don't think its any different from Wisconsin-Madison, Berkeley, Yale, Minnesota, etc. All these schools heavily emphasize research. Most will not accept anyone who even hints at the possibility of wanting to become a clinician.

There is no shortage of research-focused schools, you just need to know where to look.
 
I agree that you can tailor the program to support your research goals, but you do have to make sure your program has the support you need. I would talk to your specific POI and ask them if they're willing to support you in your research goals. Make it clear that you have research-heavy interests. I did and got some surprising responses! (On both sides of the spectrum.)
 
I find a lot of balanced programs love it if you are committed to research and want to pursue it as a career. It's probably (IMO) a nice change for them.
 
I know that people say that research and clinical work support each other. I understand how our practice can be enhanced by research (using empirically validated interventions), but I guess I'm a little confused by the reverse. How does applied clinical work enhance our research? I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just a little confused and curious.
 
McClinas said:
I know that people say that research and clinical work support each other. I understand how our practice can be enhanced by research (using empirically validated interventions), but I guess I'm a little confused by the reverse. How does applied clinical work enhance our research? I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just a little confused and curious.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's important to have applied clinical work to inform your research because it gives you an understanding of the way people work on an individual basis. I've personally found that it has inspired new research areas for me. For instance, it was through my clinical experience that I realized how many of my patients were dealing with medical conditions that were related to their inability to cope with stress. Now I am applying for Clinical Psych programs with a focus in health psych, and I just don't think I would have ever come to that conclusion without doing clinical work.

I know that example really only speaks to how having clinical experience helped me determine which research area to go into, but I think it really does make someone a well-rounded professional psychologist. I think when you're strictly in research, you can develop severe tunnel vision about one (or a few intertwined) topics and forget how much more there is to an individual. You also tend to get very objective about people, which is good in some ways, but sometimes having those clinical experiences can really help you to think more outside of the box in your research.

Not sure if that's coherent... I'm coming off a long day of writing PS's 🙂
 
Pretty much second everything clinicalpsyapp said. Much of the highest impact research emerged out of clinical observations. I wanted to at least be clinically trained to keep me grounded (i.e. I could see myself running studies just to satiate my own curiosity rather than to actually help progress the field). I think that holds true even for folks more on the basic science side of things. For folks interested in more applied research, the merits of clinical training are fairly obvious, even if the researcher is not going to actually be providing the interventions themselves.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of times I've had doubts about whether or not I "really" needed clinical training for what I want to do, especially given my interests. Mostly when I got thrown cases I wasn't prepared to handle😉 Still chugging along on the clinical path though, and its going well for the moment.
 
That's what I like about programs that provide great research training, while encouraging a balance between clinical and research work. Sometimes, we enter graduate schools thinking we'll definitely like one type of work over another. I know super research-oriented folks who begin to resent clinical work even more, after starting graduate school. I also know folks who realize they don't actually like clinical work as much as they once thought.

There are many different types of research. Psychotherapy process research is clearly and strongly influenced by experience in actual clinical observation and service provision. Even at the more basic science level, clinical experience informs us about how our brain and body work. Borrowing an example from medical science. Patients with brain lesions informed us about functions of different regions of the brain. I think clinical work in psychology may serve a similar purpose. Knowing what is an "abnormal" reaction to stress may tell us what is "normal" (OK, I am trying to be really careful here and I have no intention of starting a debate about what normality means. I am only using the terms loosely.)

Just my two cents on the issue. I guess it is something I have been thinking since I was in college. In a nutshell, I think science is a way for us to know more about the regularity in our world. Clinical work has definitely helped me identify common themes across conditions and populations.

Ollie123 said:
Pretty much second everything clinicalpsyapp said. Much of the highest impact research emerged out of clinical observations. I wanted to at least be clinically trained to keep me grounded (i.e. I could see myself running studies just to satiate my own curiosity rather than to actually help progress the field). I think that holds true even for folks more on the basic science side of things. For folks interested in more applied research, the merits of clinical training are fairly obvious, even if the researcher is not going to actually be providing the interventions themselves.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of times I've had doubts about whether or not I "really" needed clinical training for what I want to do, especially given my interests. Mostly when I got thrown cases I wasn't prepared to handle😉 Still chugging along on the clinical path though, and its going well for the moment.
Click to expand...
 
SingingCow said:
I think the program that really stands out as very research-oriented is Washington University at St. Louis.
Click to expand...

Oh, definitely! That's an excellent research-oriented program.
Berkeley is another one- clinical science. Same for Yale- heavy heavy research emphasis, and they aren't lying about it like some schools. On the other hand, watch out for places like Boston U- they are known for lying to students about how much "research" training they will get and then pulling a bait-and-switch with crazy loads of clinical work. They arent alone- plenty out there like them. But I landed at a place where I am happy with mostly research here on the west coast, and they didn't lie to me at the interview. That is all I was saying, really-- watch out for clinical programs that masquerade as good research training but really are clinical practice mills.
 
erg923 said:
I dont know if you're in grad school already or not, but I think most people on this board would agree that the real "emphasis" in ph.d program is whatever you make it...
Click to expand...

To a point, yes. But I think it can be naive to think that every program out there will just let you emphasize what you want. Some places can be very, very abusive and exploitative toward students- and you don't get as much "freedom" as in the programs that let you have more wriggle room to explore your interests as you like. There are for example programs that crush you to the breaking point with clinical work (or the reverse problem with research) such that there is not much time to pave your own path until you graduate. Programs attached to clinics like UPenn are typically ripe ground for clinical exploitation, although some advisors may be able to protect you better than others.
 
Illuminist said:
To a point, yes. But I think it can be naive to think that every program out there will just let you emphasize what you want. Some places can be very, very abusive and exploitative toward students-
Click to expand...

Im sure some can- but I really dont beleive that most programs operate in this manner.

Illuminist said:
Programs attached to clinics like UPenn are typically ripe ground for clinical exploitation, although some advisors may be able to protect you better than others.
Click to expand...

Most programs have you rotate through the university's psych clinic. I cant think of program that doesnt have an in-house clinic actually. Why do you view this as exploitative?
 
Last edited:
Illuminist said:
There are for example programs that crush you to the breaking point with clinical work (or the reverse problem with research)
Click to expand...

I think I'm lucky enough to be in a program that does both 😛. I'm kidding, but I'd be interested in hearing what people think is "too much" clinical or "too much" research within, say, the course of a week.

I work a 20 hour a week practicum (actually ends up being more like 25 hours). Other students I meet only work 5 hours a week in their clinics. I'm sure others work more than I do.
 
erg923 said:
Im sure some can- but I really dont beleive that most programs operate in this manner.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that most do. I'm saying that there are programs out there, though, where this occurs, and people applying should watch out for it and try to gauge student happiness in programs. Specifically, do they allow for flexibility of choice of emphasis in the program at some point (allow you to do more research later or more clinical later after a good chunk of the requirements are under control)?

erg923 said:
Most programs have you rotate through the university's psych clinic. I cant think of program that doesnt have an in-house clinic actually. Why do you view this as exploitative?
Click to expand...

I didnt say rotation through a clinic is by itself exploitative. What is exploitative is certain clinical programs that throw students into heavy clinical work for the entire grad school experience (and with minimal training or crappy supervision), even if certain students want more research emphasis at some point. It 's more of the student as practitioner by fiat to rake in money and data type of deal- a close friend of mine at UPenn says this is very much the case there in the anxiety clinic- and my cousin graduated from BU awhile back and said that this was a huge problem there. I do not have this problem where I am thank goodness but wanted to warn people that it does exist and to make sure to talk to grad students about how happy they feel and how free they feel to pursue what they came to grad school to pursue.

It would be naive to think that this never happens-- not saying you think it never happens, but I notice on this forum that lots of people have overly rosy views of some of these clinical programs not realizing that abuses can and do occur. It's something to be on guard for, at the very least, when interviewing and when vetting programs.
 
Hi, this is my first time posting on this site. I'm interested in going into clinical psych and thought that I was definitely interested in practicing, in which case a psyd seems to be fit for me. However, does anyone know of any specific clinical phd programs that are pretty balanced, not necessarily heavily research based? Or if there are any psyd programs that include some research?
 
okz1116 said:
Hi, this is my first time posting on this site. I'm interested in going into clinical psych and thought that I was definitely interested in practicing, in which case a psyd seems to be fit for me. However, does anyone know of any specific clinical phd programs that are pretty balanced, not necessarily heavily research based? Or if there are any psyd programs that include some research?
Click to expand...

In my (potentially limited) experience, the majority of US Ph.D. programs that adhere to the Boulder model (i.e., scientist-practitioner) either display a fairly even clinical/research split, or are slightly biased in favor of clinical work and experience (with some exceptions, by faculty member, in each program). There are of course Boulder model programs that highly stress research, but again, in my experience, it's usually a fairly even division of time.

The VERY research-intensive programs usually adhere to the clinical scientist model. However, as it's a newer model, there are fewer programs out there for it.
 
Originally Posted by Markp
I hate to say it, but I think you are wrong. There are a number of good reasons to get the Ph.D. even if you only want to become a clinician.

I won't get into the details though because that box of worms has been opened enough times in this forum.

Mark


cara susanna said:
Would you mind PMing them to me? I've already made the decision to go for a PhD, but I'm curious.
Click to expand...

Hi cara susanna, can you fwd those reasons to me too pls? I realize your post was awhile ago, so if you don't have those reasons saved do u remember some of them? Or if anyone else has some pretty good reasons, post pls!

Thanks guys!
 
Illuminist said:
On the other hand, watch out for places like Boston U- they are known for lying to students about how much "research" training they will get and then pulling a bait-and-switch with crazy loads of clinical work. They arent alone- plenty out there like them. But I landed at a place where I am happy with mostly research here on the west coast, and they didn't lie to me at the interview. That is all I was saying, really-- watch out for clinical programs that masquerade as good research training but really are clinical practice mills.
Click to expand...

How can you watch out for this? Is it something you ask about during interviews or something you can figure out by the way the present their program on their webpage? I'm applying to BU but I thought it seemed fairly equal in it's emphasis, and somewhat even leaning toward more research than practice oriented!!
 
I would say its probably difficult to find out before applying, though emailing students might produce the answer. That said, you need to be careful doing so...if it comes across badly, the students will almost definitely inform the faculty.

I don't think its particularly common for schools to "masquerade" as being research-focused and then force you into doing lots of clinical work - I've only really heard of one instance of it happening that has already been mentioned. You are probably far more likely to find research-focused schools downplaying clinical work more than they imply than making you do more of it! It probably has as much to do with the advisor/lab as the school itself. I'd recommend just waiting to the interviews and talking to people there. Yes, it might mean a wasted application fee, but this is pretty rare and indicators at the interview should be strong. Better that then lose the opportunity to attend a good school because you inadvertently said something that someone took the wrong way and it got back to the admissions committees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Psycho Bunny
Clinical PHD vs Counseling PHD?
Replies
5
Views
2K
MCParent
MCParent
J
PhD/PsyD USUHS Clinical Psychology 2026
Replies
1
Views
1K
dukun8ter
dukun8ter
S
Duquesne University Clinical Psychology PhD
Replies
5
Views
2K
sb1129
S
C
Clinical PsyD vs Clinical psychology PhD
Replies
7
Views
3K
cytomegalovirus123
C
EKS9
PhD/PsyD SEEKING PARTICIPANTS: IRB Approved Research Study
Replies
0
Views
151
EKS9
EKS9
Top