8
846115
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree & disagree with this post at the same time. I was an older student who had a degree in a different field, so I went back to undergrad part time while working, and volunteered on a hotline for experience. Is an unpaid internship necessary for admission in other programs? In my estimation, research experience was more highly valued and I obtained that as part of the returning to school part time for undergrad. I found the professors to be interested in me as an older student as they knew I was committed to my goals and would do good (and yes, a lot of grunt) work in the labs.I think it’s important to note too that many people do not have the luxury of being able to do unpaid internships or the like if they need to make money to survive, so they end up not being competitive in the PhD admissions process. SES is a huge factor and one I think the grad schools do a terrible job accounting for, psychology in particular. A family member who now has a PhD (not psychology related) was flown out to all their interview sites by the schools. Zip out of pocket. Yet, in our field you really need to be able to spend thousands and take off school/work (losing more money) to interview. Sure, some programs do Skype interviews, but we all hear those aren’t looked at as favorably. I am applying this Fall for doctoral programs, but without the ability to do a lot of unpaid activities, I don’t realistically know my chances. I’m considered middle class, but I cannot afford to spend thousands on apps and flights. And some of the application fees are downright ridiculous. $125 and then sending transcripts and GRE scores on top of that. It’s definitely a field that favors the wealthy or in some cases the severely underprivileged who may qualify for some great programs, but not most. I think you were smart to make the decision you made and I can see myself doing the same should it come down to that. I am also an older student and that is not looked upon favorably either. The elitist system definitely needs a shakeup.
I agree & disagree with this post at the same time. I was an older student who had a degree in a different field, so I went back to undergrad part time while working, and volunteered on a hotline for experience. Is an unpaid internship necessary for admission in other programs? In my estimation, research experience was more highly valued and I obtained that as part of the returning to school part time for undergrad.
If fully-funded PhD programs are the only acceptable route to becoming a psychologist, then there simply won't be enough psychogists.
I found myself feeling worried for these individuals, though, because I'm not exactly sure if they had the research and life experience to decide that a clinical psychology program, in its 6-year-long guts and glory, was *it* for them.
During my internship interviews, many students from Clinical Psychology PhD programs (not so much counseling PHD programs) had far fewer direct intervention and assessment hours.
This notion does not match the reality of the situation. At least in past published years, clinical PhD applicants have, on average, higher numbers of clinical hours than PsyD applicants.
Well then there is a problem, as the Psy.D option was created for a very specific reason. I think what we are seeing nowadays is that good PhD and Psy.D programs share more similarities than differences, which ultimately is something I find a bit perplexing.
Well, the reason for its creation and the reality of it, in most programs, are two very different things. Which often happens when there are large pools of money involved. But, these numbers have been this way for a while.
There isn't really much a decline in hours, it's pretty minimal and may just be normal variation. You'd have to look at it over time to see if that small of a difference is significant.
It’s a holiday up here in MA, and I’m just watching Red Sox and I like numbers, so I just looked at the published data on this (available easily only for 2008, 2011, 2012, and 2015):Part of me wants to graph the trend; the other part of me wants to work on this evaluation that will put some money in my pocket. And there is still an entirely different part of me that wants to watch Game of Thrones.
Year (total applicants) | Ph.D. Hours (Int. + Assess) Median/Mean | Psy.D. Hours (Int. + Assess) Median/Mean |
2008 (3759) | 823/943 | 726/799 |
2011 (3899) | 769/875 | 662/739 |
2012 (4067) | 613/892 | 500/798* |
2015 (4005) | 787/898 | 747/869 |
It’s a holiday up here in MA, and I’m just watching Red Sox and I like numbers, so I just looked at the published data on this (available easily only for 2008, 2011, 2012, and 2015):
* median assess hours=68, mean = 172. This might be a typo in the report?
Year (total applicants) Ph.D. Hours (Int. + Assess)
Median/MeanPsy.D. Hours (Int. + Assess)
Median/Mean2008 (3759) 823/943 726/799 2011 (3899) 769/875 662/739 2012 (4067) 613/892 500/798* 2015 (4005) 787/898 747/869
It’s really hard to determine an overall trend without addition data, as we don’t know if 2008 is an outlier. Since then, pretty stable means in Ph.D., with increasing trend in Psy.D. (which, given the numbers involved is probably statistically significant). Median data is kinda funky.
I've read that article before, and disagree with the premise. If you completely eliminate research training, there is almost no reason to award a doctorate degree. PsyDs with minimal or no research training are essentially just training masters level clinicians. The only real caveat would be assessment training, which I would argue that research knowledge is still essential to be a competent clinician in that area.
But what if a student wants to spend their graduate training primarily doing assessment and therapy, not research? I don't want this to turn this into a PhD vs Psy.D debate, as I think most people on this board agree there are good quality Psy.D programs. We also agree there are horrible ones!
While I understand the Vail vs Boulder models and why they were developed, I am not very impressed with the implementation of these different models in regard to clinical training. I am all for some heterogeneity, but too much heterogeneity in training leads to poorly trained providers.
While I understand the Vail vs Boulder models and why they were developed, I am not very impressed with the implementation of these different models in regard to clinical training. I am all for some heterogeneity, but too much heterogeneity in training leads to poorly trained providers.
I find myself as somewhat in this category. I ended up at a R1 university (which I wasn't even aware of when I applied), but was quite surprised at the nice balance of research and clinical work. I've really enjoyed the various responsibilities I have from seeing clients, teaching and mentoring students, and thinking of research questions I want to answer. However, it's clear when compared to a lot of my peers that my focus is on clinical work and teaching. Often I feel quite guilty/inferior for not primarily doing research and writing papers (and taking up a valuable spot in a good program). At the same time, I do not feel incompetent when it comes to being able to interpret and think critically about an empirical paper, or to use evidence-based practice in my work with clients or teaching my students. I think this gets at the spirit of your comment and what others have posted; the goal of a doctoral program in clinical psychology should provide a firm base of competency in the crucial tenets of our field...which includes research, assessment, teaching etc. I think as long as applicants know what they are getting into when applying to PhD programs (that the work balance may be more research-focused), then it's fine. I recall a statistic that something like 70% of people who graduate from clinical PhD programs end up doing primarily clinical work anyway.
I think this article pretty much speaks to what you (and I) are talking about.
I think this article pretty much speaks to what you (and I) are talking about.
I doubt the trend has reversed with the only real change being the expansion of more diploma mill programs.
Considering what we know about the field since then, and a lack of contrary evidence as to the trend, it's actually more persuasive to most of us who are in the field.I’m not saying I disagree with you, but the data is really old, so it’s less persuasive to many for that simple reason.
See attached View attachment ContentServer (13).pdfAnother somewhat related article:
"Getting In and Getting Money: A Comparative Analysis of Admission
Standards, Acceptance Rates, and Financial Assistance Across the
Research–Practice Continuum in Clinical Psychology Programs"
I also attached an older article I found interesting. Not data driven, but still an interesting perspective. View attachment 258463View attachment 258464
Probably the most up to date article around. Interested to hear what you think of their conclusions. View attachment comparisons across training, 2016.pdfThe data in the paper is very outdated. Some is over 20 years old. I’d like to see a more updated report.