rankings

i think those are the most recent rankings (from what i've found). i know there is a different ranking in terms of faculty production, but i dont have the link to that.

problem with rankings is that not all of the schools have professors doing what you're interested in!

PsychoEm said:

i think those are the most recent rankings (from what i've found). i know there is a different ranking in terms of faculty production, but i dont have the link to that.

problem with rankings is that not all of the schools have professors doing what you're interested in!

Click to expand...

It is from an article:
Roy, K.M., Roberts, M.C., & Stewart, P.K. (2006). Research productivity and academic lineage in clinical psychology: Who is training the faculty to do research? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 893-905.

Here's a link to a thread on it from the summer:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=293644

I noticed that with this year's issue, they have a separate rating for clinical programs in the health sciences division. So, it's grouped with nursing and not the other psych departments. Does anyone else find that odd?

Chronicle of Higher Education has a new ranking out for tons of doctoral programs based on data like publications from faculty, grants, etc. I can't remember the link but somewhere I did see the top ten. It wasn't at all the places you would think.

Here is an article about it, though it doesn't have the top 10 listed: http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i19/19a00801.htm

*edit*

Here is a PDF with the top 10: http://www.academicanalytics.com/SocialBehavioralSciences.pdf

-t

I'm surprised U Oregon isn't on that top 10 list. Hmmmmm...

Looks like that top 10 is for counseling, not clinical. That's not my area, so I can't judge how accurate they are.

I like the fact that people are trying to use more objective criteria for ranking programs. U.S. relies completely on faculty subjective ratings of peer programs (and their response rate is horrible), so it lies completely on faculty member's perceptions of programs' prestige. If you think about it, it's a circular process, because rankings impact prestige, which in turn impact rankings. So I like this objective stuff.

It also seems like the rankings based on faculty reports could be very biased by the work of one or two prominent faculty members at the school being ranked (and those professors may not actually be involved in the area of research you are interested in).

If I have a choice between working with a less "famous" professor (based on number of publications, awards, etc.) at a more highly ranked school, or a more "famous" professor at a lower ranking school, I should go with option 2, right?