2018-2019 Clinical Psychology PhD/PsyD Applicants (Fall 2019 Admissions)

[herewegoagainfolks]

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

I am also applying to couple of PhDs, PsyDs, and some Masters as a backup. What's your first choice (Dream) school?

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

Yes, first time applicant. I am applying to a Masters as a backup in case I don't get into any Doctoral programs, because I am only applying to like 2-3 and very competitive. So, instead of a gap year i'd rather get into a Masters and apply to schools that require a masters afterwards.

 

[TheStruggleIsReal77]

I'm applying to 8 PhD programs and 1 PsyD. I'll be applying to more PsyDs and Masters programs if I don't get any interviews or program invitations. Mine are a range, but mostly very competitive. However, if I don't get into any of the PhD programs I'm pretty certain I will get into the PsyD that I'm applying to. We shall see! This is my first year applying.

 

[psych.meout]

Unless it's a fully funded PsyD program, I'd strongly recommend not accepting an offer of admission simply because you did not get admitted to one of the PhD programs. Tuition alone is easily more than $100,000 before factoring in other costs, and this kind of debt can be nearly insurmountable with the typical remuneration for psychologists. I applied to more than one cycle before was admitted to my current program, so I get that it can be demoralizing to not receive any other offers, but reapplying is a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than attending an unfunded program. It's just not a wise decision and you shouldn't decide your career path out of desperation.

 

[TheStruggleIsReal77]

Unless it's a fully funded PsyD program, I'd strongly recommend not accepting an offer of admission simply because you did not get admitted to one of the PhD programs. Tuition alone is easily more than $100,000 before factoring in other costs, and this kind of debt can be nearly insurmountable with the typical remuneration for psychologists. I applied to more than one cycle before was admitted to my current program, so I get that it can be demoralizing to not receive any other offers, but reapplying is a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than attending an unfunded program. It's just not a wise decision and you shouldn't decide your career path out of desperation.

The PsyD that I'm applying to is fairly well funded, otherwise I would not have applied to it. There are some very good PsyD programs out there. Yes, you're inevitably going to walk away with more debt than you would in some PhD programs, but then there are also very underfunded PhD programs as well. Most people in the PsyD that I'm applying to get funding as well as an assistantship.

 

[WisNeuro]

Make sure you are looking at other distal outcome stats as well.

 

[psych.meout]

The PsyD that I'm applying to is fairly well funded, otherwise I would not have applied to it. There are some very good PsyD programs out there. Yes, you're inevitably going to walk away with more debt than you would in some PhD programs, but then there are also very underfunded PhD programs as well. Most people in the PsyD that I'm applying to get funding as well as an assistantship.

You're obfuscating the issue. Most PhD programs that are not based in professional or for-profit schools are not just going to be funded, they're fully-funded (e.g., 100% tuition remission, a stipend, health insurance). Moreover, this funding is guaranteed, unlike many PsyD and underfunded PhD programs where only some students may get full funding or most only get some kind of partial funding.

More importantly, it's not just about more debt, it's about massively more debt. Students from fully-funded programs generally walk away with little to no debt, with that debt often being attributable to their personal choices (e.g., having children during grad school, desiring a higher standard of living) or the costs of the internship process. Large amounts of debt (like that on-par with PsyD and unfunded/underfunded PhD programs) are atypical in these programs. The >$100K debt from tuition alone at the unfunded/underfunded programs is life-altering.

And this is not a knock on all PsyDs. There are several very good, fully-funded PsyD programs out there, like Baylor, but these ten to be much closer to Boulder model, Scientist-Practitioner programs than typical PsyD programs. For those PsyD programs that have good outcome statistics, the lack of funding renders them unacceptable. You're talking about med school debt with significantly less pay than what physicians get.

 

[LaceyLPC]

I've been asked to interview for 2/5 programs thus far. One PhD, and one PsyD. The PhD is my top choice, because of funding and reputation. Eeeee! Very excited and somewhat nervous!

 

[psyche27]

And this is not a knock on all PsyDs. There are several very good, fully-funded PsyD programs out there, like Baylor, but these ten to be much closer to Boulder model, Scientist-Practitioner programs than typical PsyD programs. For those PsyD programs that have good outcome statistics, the lack of funding renders them unacceptable. You're talking about med school debt with significantly less pay than what physicians get.

I have a PsyD from a well ranked university based program. It was 1/2 funded and the distal stats to this day are 100% pass on the EPPP, matches at APA internships, and high licensure rates. I left with about 80k in debt - almost all of that spent on rent/food/daycare not on tuition or books. It was worth it to me and has not hindered me in any way since graduation.

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

Nothing wrong with a non-funded program if at least some etiquette financial help is offered. I am shooting an application to CSPP/Alliant's PhD program just to make sure I have enough options by the time I make up my mind.

 

[WisNeuro]

Nothing wrong with a non-funded program if at least some etiquette financial help is offered. I am shooting an application to CSPP/Alliant's PhD program just to make sure I have enough options by the time I make up my mind.

There is something wrong if the accredited internship match numbers are not good (i.e., <85%), as it can limit career prospects going forward. Strength of program is one of the higher weighted measures we use when ranking internship applicants.

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

There is something wrong if the accredited internship match numbers are not good (i.e., <85%), as it can limit career prospects going forward. Strength of program is one of the higher weighted measures we use when ranking internship applicants.

Yet they manage to graduate half of clinical psychologists in California? <<< one of the stats I don't get lol.

Also, I was thinking to head to a masters at Pepperdine rather than attending a low match rate PhD program. And from there head to a PsyD at their institution since pepperdine requires a masters and they have an APA match rate of 91%. hmmm...grad plans are really hectic...

 

[psych.meout]

Yet they manage to graduate half of clinical psychologists in California? <<< one of the stats I don't get lol.

It's not really all that complicated. They have about a dozen programs throughout the state, many of which with cohorts significantly larger than entire student populations at funded programs.

It's just through sheer numbers and attrition that they are able to train psychologists, as less than 60% of their graduates can pass the EPPP.

Also, I was thinking to head to a masters at Pepperdine rather than attending a low match rate PhD program. And from there head to a PsyD at their institution since pepperdine requires a masters and they have an APA match rate of 91%. hmmm...grad plans are really hectic...

According to their own website, only 81% of their students have been licensed. What the hell are the other students from a PsyD program doing if they aren't licensed? Their EPPP pass rate is about 85%, so I'm guessing that they just can't get licensed, because they can't pass the test.

 

[WisNeuro]

Pepperdine has outcome stats that are fine, I just have a hard time looking past their sky high tuition. Is there any programmatic, guaranteed offset to it?

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

Pepperdine has outcome stats that are fine, I just have a hard time looking past their sky high tuition. Is there any programmatic, guaranteed offset to it?

Unfortunately, pepperdine is known to be an expensive school. The high debt is a turn off. They still have some financial help here and there, but I don't believe its satisfying much. I look at PsyD as an equivalent to Med school, you want the degree, fine. but be ready for the debts. Anyways, if you land an excellent job, then most likely you'll do fine.

 

[WisNeuro]

Unfortunately, pepperdine is known to be an expensive school. The high debt is a turn off. They still have some financial help here and there, but I don't believe its satisfying much. I look at PsyD as an equivalent to Med school, you want the degree, fine. but be ready for the debts. Anyways, if you land an excellent job, then most likely you'll do fine.

DO NOT look at it as an equivalent to med school. Even the least well paid physician specialties pay well over twice the average PsyD salary. This is apples and oranges. Physicians can pump large amounts of money into loans after paying living expenses, psychologists, MUCH LESS so.

 

[psych.meout]

Unfortunately, pepperdine is known to be an expensive school. The high debt is a turn off. They still have some financial help here and there, but I don't believe its satisfying much. I look at PsyD as an equivalent to Med school, you want the degree, fine. but be ready for the debts. Anyways, if you land an excellent job, then most likely you'll do fine.

It's going to be a painful lesson if you make a career decision based on comparing doctoral training in clinical psychology to med school. To piggyback on WisNeuro, family medicine, peds, and the other low paying physician specialties start out after residency/fellowship at earnings equivalent to what psychologists earn mid-to-late career, albeit depending on their specialty, training, context, etc (e.g., neuropsychologists make more than generalists in community mental health centers). Even with the the high end of the earnings for early-to-mid career psychologists, it would take you a long time to pay off the likely $200K+ debt you'd accrue through an unfunded program. It would also seriously hamper your quality of life (e.g., putting off buying a home, putting away college money for children) and hurt your ability to catch up on retirement savings that were lost through the years of your training.

Furthermore, if you're going into psychology, you need a firm grasp on statistics and probability. It's unwise to assume that you'll be an outlier and bring in earnings at the top extreme of the distribution. This isn't an insult to your intelligence or ability, it's just more probable that you'll be somewhere in the middle of the distribution.

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

^^ I totally knew that already, I was just setting a scenario not comparing salaries. Neuropsych is one of the highest paid in the field, but it all has to go down to how you use your degree and credentials. Large vs small city, Private vs public organization, etc.. all pay a role in what your earnings will look like. The end of story is that it is doable, both landing a high paying position and managing the debt. Speaking of California, salaries between primary physicians and neuropsychs are not big of a difference. I don't know about the other states. But salary always seemed pumped up in any specialty leaned towards the health care fields. In other words, there would be a good salary gap between a researcher psychologist at school and a neuropsych at a hospital.

 

[WisNeuro]

^^ I totally knew that already, I was just setting a scenario not comparing salaries. Neuropsych is one of the highest paid in the field, but it all has to go down to how you use your degree and credentials. Large vs small city, Private vs public organization, etc.. all pay a role in what your earnings will look like. The end of story is that it is doable, both landing a high paying position and managing the debt. Speaking of California, salaries between primary physicians and neuropsychs are not big of a difference. I don't know about the other states. But salary always seemed pumped up in any specialty leaned towards the health care fields. In other words, there would be a good salary gap between a researcher psychologist at school and a neuropsych at a hospital.

I'm curious as to what you consider a "big difference, If 6 figures plus is not that big of a difference.

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

I'm curious as to what you consider a "big difference, If 6 figures plus is not that big of a difference.

Like the difference in the class of wealth. Both professions can be somewhere in the middle class and possibly pass to upper depending on success.

Like every psychologist I have been around here at UC Davis (My undergrad) is a successful one making $190k+, I don't know why always the people on sdn put psychologists in the working class in terms of wealth. Almost in every profession you never come out of your grad gown the next day making the figures.

 

[psych.meout]

^^ I totally knew that already, I was just setting a scenario not comparing salaries. Neuropsych is one of the highest paid in the field, but it all has to go down to how you use your degree and credentials. Large vs small city, Private vs public organization, etc.. all pay a role in what your earnings will look like. The end of story is that it is doable, both landing a high paying position and managing the debt. Speaking of California, salaries between primary physicians and neuropsychs are not big of a difference. I don't know about the other states. But salary always seemed pumped up in any specialty leaned towards the health care fields. In other words, there would be a good salary gap between a researcher psychologist at school and a neuropsych at a hospital.

Ok, but you just cherry picked arguably the highest earning psychologist specialty. Most psychologists are not neuropsychologists and most students at unfunded programs aren't going into neuropsychology. Furthermore, many of the diploma mills like Alliant, Argosy, Carlos Albizu, etc. have pretty bad reputations, to the point where their students just aren't anywhere near as competitive for neuropsych internships, fellowships, and jobs. This means that despite being in a statistically better-paid specialty, their training background is likely to going to at least make their careers difficult.

Like the difference in the class of wealth. Both professions can be somewhere in the middle class and possibly pass to upper depending on success.

Like every psychologist I have been around here at UC Davis (My undergrad) is a successful one making $190k+, I don't know why always the people on sdn put psychologists in the working class in terms of wealth. Almost in every profession you never come out of your grad gown the next day making the figures.

Again, you need to look at the statistics, not your personal anecdotes. Yes, those people you know may be making a lot of money, but that's atypical based on the data. You shouldn't be making career decisions or predictions for your future based on personal anecdotes.

 

[WisNeuro]

Like the difference in the class of wealth. Both professions can be somewhere in the middle class and possibly pass to upper depending on success.

Like every psychologist I have been around here at UC Davis (My undergrad) is a successful one making $190k+, I don't know why always the people on sdn put psychologists in the working class in terms of wealth. Almost in every profession you never come out of your grad gown the next day making the figures.

It's all about what most people are doing in those professions. I know many neuropsychologists who work in California, and 190k is a huge outlier in the top end. Additionally, I can tell you what every neuropsychologist in the VA system in California make, it's public record and part of the GS system, and it's nowhere close to that. Typical vs. possible is the huge distinction. Not everyone becomes an astronaut, just like not everyone in psychology makes close to 200k, especially when 150-200k represents what is likely the top 2-3% of psychologists in the country. Those other 97% are going to have a VERY HARD time paying off med school level loans.

 

[Justanothergrad]

In addition to all the points raised above about what is typical versus what is possible, you need to also consider that UC Davis isn't the average undergrad program to use for comparison of salaries and living in Sacramento is ~25% more costly off the bat. Additionally, you also should double check your estimations of what everyone is earning there - it's substantially lower than you described, especially given the cost of living.

 

[MCParent]

Like the difference in the class of wealth. Both professions can be somewhere in the middle class and possibly pass to upper depending on success.

Like every psychologist I have been around here at UC Davis (My undergrad) is a successful one making $190k+, I don't know why always the people on sdn put psychologists in the working class in terms of wealth. Almost in every profession you never come out of your grad gown the next day making the figures.

Where do you get 190+ from? UC Davis is a public and salaries are published. They’re nowhere near that.

 

[WisNeuro]

Where do you get 190+ from? UC Davis is a public and salaries are published. They’re nowhere near that.

Maybe an IO psychologist in the business school, they may actually make that kind of cash?

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

Where do you get 190+ from? UC Davis is a public and salaries are published. They’re nowhere near that.

They do publish the salaries. My lab pi is a general clinical psychologist and looked her up making about $230k in 2017. She could be an outlier, never know, But she's not the only clinician with that salary in the UC system.

 

[WisNeuro]

They do publish the salaries. My lab pi is a general clinical psychologist and looked her up making about $230k in 2017. She could be an outlier, never know, But she's not the only clinician with that salary in the UC system.

We do know, though. This is an outlier. A pretty extreme one. These salaries, and those of other public agencies, like the VA, are public, and they are far below those numbers for 95% of psychologists. These are verifiable facts.

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

Ok, but you just cherry picked arguably the highest earning psychologist specialty. Most psychologists are not neuropsychologists and most students at unfunded programs aren't going into neuropsychology. Furthermore, many of the diploma mills like Alliant, Argosy, Carlos Albizu, etc. have pretty bad reputations, to the point where their students just aren't anywhere near as competitive for neuropsych internships, fellowships, and jobs. This means that despite being in a statistically better-paid specialty, their training background is likely to going to at least make their careers difficult.


Again, you need to look at the statistics, not your personal anecdotes. Yes, those people you know may be making a lot of money, but that's atypical based on the data. You shouldn't be making career decisions or predictions for your future based on personal anecdotes.

Well we need to remember that Neuropsych is not an internship specialty. It is a post-doc specialization. So your training in the program does not "have" to equate your sub-specialty. Especially when you mentioned professional schools (Alliant etc..), those schools do their best to prepare you as a clinical graduate like other non-professional schools (UCLA, USC, etc..) following the APA standards. Anything beyond that is in your own hand. Maybe because those schools (Professional) are quite lenient on their admissions requirements, so therefore, they end up attracting below to average performers and give them a CHANCE to stretch their capabilities. Of course one of the big benefits of attending a traditional university is that you will have a chance to get an early work done in the field of your specialization (neuro, health, Forensic, etcc..) hence, the strong research focus these universities are ranked up for. These professional schools carry more of a stigma rather than a bad reputation, I mean I believe the strongest one out of all is Alliant (based on my research, idk much about the rest). Their PhD program is yet still able to place more than half of their students into an APA internship. I see this looking too good for a professionals school. Plus, the majority of their students are densely diverse in their career goals, where many of them don't even opt for licensure or APA internships, on purpose, to meet their goals. But we still account their non participation into our statistics and conclude that the school is not performing well. Professional schools have approach a little different than traditional universities where you see everyone in the class to be on the same road to credentials. You just apply where you believe the program best fits your needs for training. NOT because of ranking.

 

[MCParent]

Well we need to remember that Neuropsych is not an internship specialty. It is a post-doc specialization. So your training in the program does not "have" to equate your sub-specialty. Especially when you mentioned professional schools (Alliant etc..), those schools do their best to prepare you as a clinical graduate like other non-professional schools (UCLA, USC, etc..) following the APA standards. Anything beyond that is in your own hand. Maybe because those schools (Professional) are quite lenient on their admissions requirements, so therefore, they end up attracting below to average performers and give them a CHANCE to stretch their capabilities. Of course one of the big benefits of attending a traditional university is that you will have a chance to get an early work done in the field of your specialization (neuro, health, Forensic, etcc..) hence, the strong research focus these universities are ranked up for. These professional schools carry more of a stigma rather than a bad reputation, I mean I believe the strongest one out of all is Alliant (based on my research, idk much about the rest). Their PhD program is yet still able to place more than half of their students into an APA internship. I see this looking too good for a professionals school. Plus, the majority of their students are densely diverse in their career goals, where many of them don't even opt for licensure or APA internships, on purpose, to meet their goals. But we still account their non participation into our statistics and conclude that the school is not performing well. Professional schools have approach a little different than traditional universities where you see everyone in the class to be on the same road to credentials. You just apply where you believe the program best fits your needs for training. NOT because of ranking.

Basically everything in this post is incorrect.

You can have your feelz on what you think your prospects are, but you're talking to people with a decades of experience in the field.

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

We do know, though. This is an outlier. A pretty extreme one. These salaries, and those of other public agencies, like the VA, are public, and they are far below those numbers for 95% of psychologists. These are verifiable facts.

But we cannot deny that their wages is a livable one. They are still professionals respected in their fields doing what they love. You gotta take your success and invest in it. I wouldn't expect my degree alone to get me the $, even if I were an oxford graduate.

Out of the blue: May I ask where did you graduate from? and do you carry a PhD or a PsyD?

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

Basically everything in this post is incorrect.

You can have your feelz on what you think your prospects are, but you're talking to people with a decades of experience in the field.

I would love for you to correct me. Stating your opinion is not a valid argument to disproving my statements.

Best,

 

[MCParent]

OK, sure.

Well we need to remember that Neuropsych is not an internship specialty. It is a post-doc specialization. So your training in the program does not "have" to equate your sub-specialty.

So the plan is to shoot yourself in the foot from the get-go? There definitely are schools that track students very well into neuro, and you'd be competing against them for the extremely competitive neuro post docs and fellowships.

Especially when you mentioned professional schools (Alliant etc..), those schools do their best to prepare you as a clinical graduate like other non-professional schools (UCLA, USC, etc..) following the APA standards.

The evidence (match rates, EPPP pass rates, etc.) does not indicate that this is correct.

Anything beyond that is in your own hand. Maybe because those schools (Professional) are quite lenient on their admissions requirements, so therefore, they end up attracting below to average performers and give them a CHANCE to stretch their capabilities. Of course one of the big benefits of attending a traditional university is that you will have a chance to get an early work done in the field of your specialization (neuro, health, Forensic, etcc..) hence, the strong research focus these universities are ranked up for.

Yes, and you'd be competing against those students with a half decade of experience for the best jobs.

These professional schools carry more of a stigma rather than a bad reputation

I don't know how you differentiate stigma versus reputation.

I mean I believe the strongest one out of all is Alliant (based on my research, idk much about the rest).

Super nope. Just like the $190+ salary thing, you cannot simply make something up and have it be true. Alliant campuses are consistently some of the worst performers. The strongest school that is still expensive would be Palo Alto by my vote.

Their PhD program is yet still able to place more than half of their students into an APA internship. I see this looking too good for a professionals school.

This is a terrible criterion for quality.

Plus, the majority of their students are densely diverse in their career goals, where many of them don't even opt for licensure or APA internships, on purpose, to meet their goals.

Again, simply making something up does not make it true. How would you know this? Why would people go to a PsyD other than to get licensed and practice?

But we still account their non participation into our statistics and conclude that the school is not performing well. Professional schools have approach a little different than traditional universities where you see everyone in the class to be on the same road to credentials. You just apply where you believe the program best fits your needs for training. NOT because of ranking.

I don't understand what this series of words is intended to mean.

 

[Justanothergrad]

If only I knew what others profess to know before they entered the field.

 

[str63]

Well we need to remember that Neuropsych is not an internship specialty. It is a post-doc specialization. So your training in the program does not "have" to equate your sub-specialty. Especially when you mentioned professional schools (Alliant etc..), those schools do their best to prepare you as a clinical graduate like other non-professional schools (UCLA, USC, etc..) following the APA standards. Anything beyond that is in your own hand. Maybe because those schools (Professional) are quite lenient on their admissions requirements, so therefore, they end up attracting below to average performers and give them a CHANCE to stretch their capabilities. Of course one of the big benefits of attending a traditional university is that you will have a chance to get an early work done in the field of your specialization (neuro, health, Forensic, etcc..) hence, the strong research focus these universities are ranked up for. These professional schools carry more of a stigma rather than a bad reputation, I mean I believe the strongest one out of all is Alliant (based on my research, idk much about the rest). Their PhD program is yet still able to place more than half of their students into an APA internship. I see this looking too good for a professionals school. Plus, the majority of their students are densely diverse in their career goals, where many of them don't even opt for licensure or APA internships, on purpose, to meet their goals. But we still account their non participation into our statistics and conclude that the school is not performing well. Professional schools have approach a little different than traditional universities where you see everyone in the class to be on the same road to credentials. You just apply where you believe the program best fits your needs for training. NOT because of ranking.

Normally I try to keep everything as positive as possible on here, but I'm quite irked by your posts. I agree that some of the comments on here can be quite strong, but generally, those responding to your posts are trying to help you (although I don't think you see this - I think you see this am them arguing). Everyone (who has much experience in the field) is making great points that you don't seem to believe, despite not having this experience or reporting on appropriate facts. There are many things that you are stating that are incorrect that can be verified by facts by an easy search, including:

1) Salaries of psychologists. I don't think you understand the mean and median and that most psychologists are not making any where near the salaries you've spoken of (including neuropsychologists).

2) The professional schools you mentioned aren't just a stigma, they definitely have a bad reputation. If it was just a "stigma" then why are their outcomes so poor? When the goal of these programs is to produce clinicians, it is VERY worrisome that many are not passing the EPPP or becoming licensed. I'm a bit confused what you think the graduates' goals are because they are not becoming researchers or going into academia. I know multiple internship programs who toss these applications into the rejection pile immediately because of the quality of training these students receive. FYI - I'm a director of internship training and know a great deal about these programs and the training they receive.

3) There are tracks at many programs (neuropsych, peds, health, etc.). This is what begins to set up applicants for internships with a neuropsych focus to get a neuropsych fellowship. Trust me, nobody is getting an interview at my program for our neuropsych track if they don't have any neuropsych experience in grad school. And you'd have no chance of landing a neuropsych fellowship following the Houston guidelines without having neuropsychology on your internship.

The advice you've been given about attending a program without funding is very good advice. There are obviously many others who have thought similarly to you and are now at a place where they have an overwhelming amount of debt - I know many of these people. We are trying to discourage people from going this route because these programs often don't have as good of training, as good of outcomes, and leave their graduates with debt. All of this could be avoidable. However, if you are set on going to a program where you will not receive funding, that is ultimately your choice, but please make sure you are taking the facts into consideration and not just anecdotes.

 

[Infinite_Loop]

Hi all, I was hoping to get some advice from someone more knowledgeable about the clinical psychology application norms than I am. I was offered and accepted and interview at a program that would be an absolute dream to attend. However, I was just offered another interview at another dream program that is on the same date. I think I would prefer to interview with the second program, but I definitely don't want to do anything that would hurt my reputation with either program or both. Any advice?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Hi all, I was hoping to get some advice from someone more knowledgeable about the clinical psychology application norms than I am. I was offered and accepted and interview at a program that would be an absolute dream to attend. However, I was just offered another interview at another dream program that is on the same date. I think I would prefer to interview with the second program, but I definitely don't want to do anything that would hurt my reputation with either program or both. Any advice?

Congrats! Programs frequently have alternative dates setup for just this likelihood. After all, there are only so many Mondays and Friday. 🙂

I would ask if they have alternative dates to attend and, if not, contact the first to ask if they have any flexibility for an alternative date. I will encourage you to be mindful of how they approach this - it is my belief that good mentorship and care about students starts during the application/interview process. Everything is data for you to consider.

 

[WisNeuro]

But we cannot deny that their wages is a livable one. They are still professionals respected in their fields doing what they love. You gotta take your success and invest in it. I wouldn't expect my degree alone to get me the $, even if I were an oxford graduate.

Out of the blue: May I ask where did you graduate from? and do you carry a PhD or a PsyD?

We actually can deny that the wage that they have is livable depending on the debt burden they carry and the COL in their area. This is a real dilemma for many people, especially in saturated markets. If you can stomach the debt and be part of the working poor to do what you love, that's your choice. We are merely advocating for providing people accurate information, rather than misleading them about how much the top 3% in our field make and making it sound like they can easily achieve that.

 

[Infinite_Loop]

Congrats! Programs frequently have alternative dates setup for just this likelihood. After all, there are only so many Mondays and Friday. 🙂

I would ask if they have alternative dates to attend and, if not, contact the first to ask if they have any flexibility for an alternative date. I will encourage you to be mindful of how they approach this - it is my belief that good mentorship and care about students starts during the application/interview process. Everything is data for you to consider.

Thank you so much for your advice! I'll keep this in mind and do as you say as it seems logical and like a great approach.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using SDN mobile

 

[Infinite_Loop]

I have another weird question for those in the know.

Should I take off my wedding ring during interviews? Is being married a negative for programs considering applicants?

I've never really taken it off before so I would feel weird haha.

 

[MCParent]

I have another weird question for those in the know.

Should I take off my wedding ring during interviews? Is being married a negative for programs considering applicants?

I've never really taken it off before so I would feel weird haha.

I’ve never heard anyone mention being married mattering one way or the other for an applicant.

 

[Infinite_Loop]

I’ve never heard anyone mention being married mattering one way or the other for an applicant.

Thank you. I had just seen it mentioned that some might consider having a family to be a distraction, which I found quite strange.

 

[Psychologist_dreamer]

Thank you. I had just seen it mentioned that some might consider having a family to be a distraction, which I found quite strange.

i think it depends on gender probably. women will be more discriminated against as they are the one's who will physically need to take leave if there is a pregnancy, which means take longer for the program/internship/licensure etc and potentially skew outcome stats.
a man probably wouldn't have the same issues

 

[MCParent]

i think it depends on gender probably. women will be more discriminated against as they are the one's who will physically need to take leave if there is a pregnancy, which means take longer for the program/internship/licensure etc and potentially skew outcome stats.
a man probably wouldn't have the same issues

I think most faculty are smart enough to understand that not all people who are married are going to have kids and not all people who are going to have kids are married, and that not all people have kids by giving birth.

I might suggest that all people who look to others like they might have a uterus plan how they’ll answer some entitled professor who thinks that asking what the applicant plans to do with that uterus is any of their business.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Thank you. I had just seen it mentioned that some might consider having a family to be a distraction, which I found quite strange.

I've also never seen this be part or any conversation about applicants at all. Keep in mind also that most trainees are of the marriage age during grad school so it's likely than many will be engaged/married before the end of the program. Relationships are part of life.

 

[Indiana_Jane]

I have another weird question for those in the know.

Should I take off my wedding ring during interviews? Is being married a negative for programs considering applicants?

I've never really taken it off before so I would feel weird haha.

I wore my wedding ring during interviews. At one point, I thought about whether it would influence my interviews, and then decided I wouldn’t want to attend a program that used being engaged/married etc., as screening criteria. I was pregnant during my 1st year, and now have a toddler in my 3rd year. Finding the right fit in terms of program culture was worth more than potentially getting accepted to a program that would have not been in line with my goals.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

Have anyone applied to Alliant's SD or LA?

 

[Justanothergrad]

I don’t think there are really one size fits all elements to what to do. Professors are people with all of the biases people have. And thus, some may like things you do, write or say whilst others won’t.

My opinions follow:

- don’t lead with personal struggles with mental illness as a motivator for attendance.
- avoid poor grammar, spelling errors, non-sequiturs, poor organization in personal statement.
- if there is something glaring in your past and you have to say “yes” to a conduct or legal issue, you need to explain it. Better make it good. If you say yes and you don’t explain it you allow the imagination of the reader to flourish. It won’t be to your favor.
- don’t talk about weaknesses in your personal statement.
- do highlight key experiences in terms of education and research experience and why these motivate you and how they’ve cultivated your interest in a specific lab or direction.
- make sure when you ask for a letter of rec that the person your asking will write a good one. “Are you willing and able to write a good letter of recommendation for me?”
- it is often helpful to your letter writers to offer to draft a letter for them.

I would add that you need to talk to professors about where you are applying and your career goals- give us the tools to write good letters or we can't, even if we want to.

 

[MCParent]

I’ve interviewed many prospective students. I don’t remember ever noticing a wedding ring.

This is totally anecdotal, but it came up in one of my lab meetings. Several women in my lab reported both a habit of looking for a ring (for any gender) and noticing other women looking directly at their finger to see if they had a ring. Might be a Southern US x gender thing. But I’ve never heard it mentioned in a faculty meeting. Just a reason why some people might wonder about whether it might matter.

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

Has anyone else got interview invitation for USC? Got soo excited here..