Alliant: California School of Prof. Psych.

[s3v_Clinical]

Hi everyone,
I've been waitlisted at two major universities and things are looking quite grim considering it is Apr 4...but I have also been accepted to Alliant International University (California School of Professional Psychology). I've been accepted into their Ph.D. program in Clinical...I was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts on getting a degree from there (what are job prospects like)? Since this is a free-standing school, debt will be extremely high...Will it be manageable? Since this is not a major university, will I still have teaching opportunities? I am extremely disappointed because I really wanted to go to one of the schools I was waitlisted at...I feel extremely disappointed...I would also like to post my vital stats for advice on perhaps taking research positions (taking time off) and beefing up my application. I really need advice as to what to do!
I have a 3.95 gpa overall, 3.97 gpa in Psychology (highest honors track)...I am still in undergrad (finishing this coming June). 3 poster presentations, senior thesis in social psych (my undergrad university doesn't have a clinical division)...so I've held RA positions in Social, Dev. and Cog Psych, internship at girls group home...Any advice welcome!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Psyclops]

What were GREs? Were the schools you applied to based on the faculty, i mean did you narrow your search based on whom you want to do research with, are you focused and know what you want to study in particular? Also, are you interested in teaching, or a career in academics? I wouldn't suggest going to a professional school if you want to keep the door open for academia. You are still young it sounds like your CV is strong and if you take a year off and work in a lab yu could get in where you want next year. In other words this is too big of a decision to just settle on, no harm in taking more time.

 

[s3v_Clinical]

What were GREs? Were the schools you applied to based on the faculty, i mean did you narrow your search based on whom you want to do research with, are you focused and know what you want to study in particular? Also, are you interested in teaching, or a career in academics? I wouldn't suggest going to a professional school if you want to keep the door open for academia. You are still young it sounds like your CV is strong and if you take a year off and work in a lab yu could get in where you want next year. In other words this is too big of a decision to just settle on, no harm in taking more time.

My interests were definitely narrowed down. All the schools that I pretty much got interviews with were pretty strong faculty research matches...esp the ones that I got waitlisted at. My GRES combined 1230's not outstanding but I studied for 17 weeks straight...and I think that was definitely my best (higher than any of my diagnostic tests)...I really want to be a prof/clinician...Is it appropriate/okay to apply to labs that require a BA even though I'm receiving it in June? Thanks for the advice

 

[50960]

Get your doctorate where you can, and the world opens up from there. Alliant is.....OK, but definitely not a strict research giant. They do evidenced based psych training with too much PC BS, but in my mind that is better than training based on a 50's era model where you learn all about theory and nothing about practice, biopsych, and meds.

 

[Psyclops]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with our moderator here. Biopsych and such are certainly important, but even current basic conceptualizations of psychopathology have a long way to go before we can slow down on the theorizing and research. Go to the 50's era model. Learn the hard stuff, you can always pick up the clinical experience later. Also, not all Boulder model schools neglect the practicum side of things.

Yes it is appropriate to apply now with the expectation that you will get the degree in JUne, in fact the sooner you apply the better.

Also, you should discuss this with some well respected mentors whom you know well, even though advice on these boards can be usefull. Good lUck.

 

[s3v_Clinical]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with our moderator here. Biopsych and such are certainly important, but even current basic conceptualizations of psychopathology have a long way to go before we can slow down on the theorizing and research. Go to the 50's era model. Learn the hard stuff, you can always pick up the clinical experience later. Also, not all Boulder model schools neglect the practicum side of things.

Yes it is appropriate to apply now with the expectation that you will get the degree in JUne, in fact the sooner you apply the better.

Also, you should discuss this with some well respected mentors whom you know well, even though advice on these boards can be usefull. Good lUck.

THanks for the advice. I've applied to two research jobs thus far. Do you know of where else you can look for job postings (clinical psychology specific)? I contacted my mentors through email today and they both said to call them asap...from their emails, they don't seem that they want me to accept the Alliant offer...

 

[clinpsychgirl]

THanks for the advice. I've applied to two research jobs thus far. Do you know of where else you can look for job postings (clinical psychology specific)? I contacted my mentors through email today and they both said to call them asap...from their emails, they don't seem that they want me to accept the Alliant offer...

I am not in the position to comment about Alliant as I know very little about their program. However, I would make sure to talk to a trusted mentor about it- as it seems that you are in the process of doing.

I can tell you that now is the best time to begin to express interest for RA positions. This is the time when facilities know who they are losing to graduate school and will begin the search for new applicants. Be ahead of the game and get your name in there early, again, as you seem to be doing. You are on the right track and have some great stats to secure an RA position. You can search this forum for some links. Also, ask your mentors if they know of any suitable options- this could be your best bet. Good luck.

PS- I had very similar stats as you coming out of undergrad (top GPA, 4 presentations at national conferences, honors thesis, 3 RA positions in internationally recognized facilities, solid clinical experiences, and even a similar GRE). I can tell you that I benefited tremendously from taking the time off to complete a full time RAship and have gotten several publications and a wealth of contacts from the experience. PM me for more details if you would like.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

I think you need to do some balancing of your priorities. If you are looking to teach, the pub requirements and pedigree are going to make a difference. I think that a more traditional PhD program is going to expand your research opportunities quite a bit. In addition, think about how important the quality of the student body is to you, size of class and specific areas of interest of the faculty.

I really think a lot of schools like students with 1-3 years post undergrad exposure. It aids a lot in the maturation process. In addition, it is going to seperate you from the heard a little more. On the other hand, life is not over just because you don't go to the best grad school. If you want more of a guarantee, wait and pick up the additional exposure.

 

[MI2005]

THanks for the advice. I've applied to two research jobs thus far. Do you know of where else you can look for job postings (clinical psychology specific)? I contacted my mentors through email today and they both said to call them asap...from their emails, they don't seem that they want me to accept the Alliant offer...

If you do decide to go the RA route, instead of looking for job postings, I would suggest looking for faculty in medical schools or larege research institutions to see what work they are doing. Once you find some that you like in a place you like, write to them directly asking if they might be looking for a RA and attach your CV to the e-mail. I got three RA offers this way in about a month (I applied to several different places), and 0 as a result of spending months applying to job postings through human resources. I found that even if a researcher couldn't afford to hire me or didn't want to take me on, for the most part, they were willing to respond with suggestions about where to look. In one case, a woman forwarded my email around her department, and someone else ended up inviting me to interview!

Good luck with your decision about Alliant. I can imagine how frustrating it must be to have gone through this process without getting in anywhere you really love. If you do go through it again, at least this time you will know what to expect and will be even more ahead of the game with your applications.

Your stats seem fine. Mine were lower than yours and I got in several places, I think because of having had a couple years working full time in a large lab.

 

[s3v_Clinical]

If you do decide to go the RA route, instead of looking for job postings, I would suggest looking for faculty in medical schools or larege research institutions to see what work they are doing. Once you find some that you like in a place you like, write to them directly asking if they might be looking for a RA and attach your CV to the e-mail. I got three RA offers this way in about a month (I applied to several different places), and 0 as a result of spending months applying to job postings through human resources. I found that even if a researcher couldn't afford to hire me or didn't want to take me on, for the most part, they were willing to respond with suggestions about where to look. In one case, a woman forwarded my email around her department, and someone else ended up inviting me to interview!

Good luck with your decision about Alliant. I can imagine how frustrating it must be to have gone through this process without getting in anywhere you really love. If you do go through it again, at least this time you will know what to expect and will be even more ahead of the game with your applications.

Your stats seem fine. Mine were lower than yours and I got in several places, I think because of having had a couple years working full time in a large lab.

Do you just email these faculty members inquiring about paid RA positions and attach your CV?

 

[MI2005]

Do you just email these faculty members inquiring about paid RA positions and attach your CV?

That's basically what I did. I also included in the email info. I'd put in a cover letter, such as a summary of my experiences, my interest in their work and potential ways I could contribute to their lab.

 

[50960]

People tend to protect and defend the path they have chosen, because they have been talked in to it. I am no different, but I am where I am via a very unconventional path. I have seen so many eager, bright psychology students get sucked into the the BS fed to them by their "advisors", and shave years off their life making beans in an RA job, or waiting for an opening at the right school etc... I have been there, and the best advice you can get is to get the degree, get the license, get a job, and THEN start worrying about how to make yourself successful. An unlicensed psychologist/student is just taken advantage of in the hopes that the PI will further them somehow; they will only advance you as far as you can advance them. You will learn a thousand times more useful information in your first year as a real psychologist than you ever did in school.

 

[pengy]

.

 

[Psyclops]

People tend to protect and defend the path they have chosen, because they have been talked in to it. I am no different, but I am where I am via a very unconventional path. I have seen so many eager, bright psychology students get sucked into the the BS fed to them by their "advisors", and shave years off their life making beans in an RA job, or waiting for an opening at the right school etc... I have been there, and the best advice you can get is to get the degree, get the license, get a job, and THEN start worrying about how to make yourself successful. An unlicensed psychologist/student is just taken advantage of in the hopes that the PI will further them somehow; they will only advance you as far as you can advance them. You will learn a thousand times more useful information in your first year as a real psychologist than you ever did in school.

I both agree and disagree with you. For one, people certainly defend thier choices, I'll not argue with you there. And I am where I am, not by a necessarily unconventional path, but certainly not the easy path. But I disagree with your advice, I think that is not necessarily the best route. Although I as well think you will learn more the first year of your career, that shouldn't discourage you from seeking out the experiences you think might benefit you the most. I think the time spent as an RA can be torture, especially if you aren't doing what you enjoy, but it can catapult you into a position you might want, or it could let you know if you truly want to pursue the degree. Kids can feel an imense amount of pressure to hurry through, or fell like they are drouwining if they have to take a year to get more experience. I say take your twenties (i realize this is not always the case) and invest in yourself. In terms of the different tipes of experience, there is a wealth of oportunities for clinical experience after school, but I don't think that practicing psychologists have an imense amount of time to be doing research and theorizing. Work can be exhausting. That said, I think the two are inextricable. The right program is going to lay the right foundations, and influence the way you think about psychopathology and the training you get. Not all are equal, and not all are that are well thought of will give you the same background. This is something to consider too.

 

[clinpsychgirl]

People tend to protect and defend the path they have chosen, because they have been talked in to it. I am no different, but I am where I am via a very unconventional path. I have seen so many eager, bright psychology students get sucked into the the BS fed to them by their "advisors", and shave years off their life making beans in an RA job, or waiting for an opening at the right school etc... I have been there, and the best advice you can get is to get the degree, get the license, get a job, and THEN start worrying about how to make yourself successful. An unlicensed psychologist/student is just taken advantage of in the hopes that the PI will further them somehow; they will only advance you as far as you can advance them. You will learn a thousand times more useful information in your first year as a real psychologist than you ever did in school.

I don't disagree that you learn more advanced information as a practicing psychologist. And your point about advancing the research of the PIs is warranted- they call it research assistant for a reason.

That being said, there are mentors out there who care about giving back and furthering the career of future young professionals. Frankly, I am sorry if you have not experienced such mentorship. I don't see it as being fed BS when a successful mentor that you have a close working relationship with advises you to work in the field (publish, present, gain clinical experience, etc...) in order to have a better shot at securing the fully funded funded position in graduate school.

And what exactly is the harm in taking an extra year or two to make sure that clinical psychology is what you want to spend the rest of your career dedicated to? If those "eager bright students" are disheartened after a failed application round straight out of undergrad, perhaps clinical psychology isn't the field for them. The dedicated ones will persevere in reaching their goals...even if it is at the ripe old age of 24 or what have you. Not to mention that by waiting and "making beans" as an RA, you are potentially saving yourself from thousands in debt (if your options are between paying out of pocket for a program or taking time off and working).

Incidentally, there are opportunites in some of the major research labs in the country for RAs to make reasonable money on par to what is payed for many other post BA entry level positions (35,000-40,000).

Anyway, take this post for what it is- just my humble opinion- and of course influnenced by my own experiences.

 

[PsyDRxPnow]

People tend to protect and defend the path they have chosen, because they have been talked in to it. I am no different, but I am where I am via a very unconventional path. I have seen so many eager, bright psychology students get sucked into the the BS fed to them by their "advisors", and shave years off their life making beans in an RA job, or waiting for an opening at the right school etc... I have been there, and the best advice you can get is to get the degree, get the license, get a job, and THEN start worrying about how to make yourself successful. An unlicensed psychologist/student is just taken advantage of in the hopes that the PI will further them somehow; they will only advance you as far as you can advance them. You will learn a thousand times more useful information in your first year as a real psychologist than you ever did in school.

you have a NO BS way about you. I respect that.

 

[Psychbird]

By all means, if you don't care about money at all and have no aspirations to anything but being a clinical dog, go to alliant.

Is this really how you look at practicing psychologists?

 

[50960]

Yes, that really is how Dr. Snow looks at practicing psychologists!!
It is not really from my experience in training that I am making my case here, but rather the experiences of hundreds of students and psychologists I have spoken to on the topic over the last 7 years. n=1 "yourself" is not a good data set. At least I am peeking into the anecdotal experiences of others who have been there, and expressed how it was for them.

 

[Psyclops]

psisci, what data set are you sampling from?

 

[splendid]

I've been reading SDN much longer than I've been posting. Now that it is so late in the process, I wonder why anyone would rely on advice from these forums for picking a grad school. I agree that people tend to advise you to do what they did (not always bad, but still). And why would anyone take advice on what an anonymous internet poster has "heard" about a particular place? Only the people there right now (or very recent graduates) can give you worthwhile info.

I'm speaking generally here, not just about this thread. Either way, I still think reading this stuff can be entertaining, but all comments by anonymous internet posters (including myself) should be taken with a grain of salt when you are making a life-changing decision for yourself.

 

[50960]

True splendid, but you did just join this month...I am a MOD and know this. My data set is that I have been licensed for years, have worked with many students, interns, postdocs etc... I see alot of people taken advantage of because they get bad advice. When you are licensed it is up to YOU to make your way, not your PI, your prestigious school affiliation, who you know and can get a letter from...this is all hollow at the end of the day. As Snow knows I have training from one of the top research programs in developmental psychology, but nobody cares! In modern time psychology it is what you can do that counts, not who you know, or how much you suffered to get there.

 

[Psyclops]

psisci, I won't argue that it is what you can do that will be what you are judged on (did that make sense?). But do you really see people out there trying to coast by on thier credentials, it sounds like that is what you rail against. Look, I'll be up front, I'm interested in having a career rich in research, but not to the exclusion of clinical work. The way I currently see it, the mental health field is in a shambles, the way psychopathology is currently conceptualized by those practicing in the field is inconsistent with what reserach has been showing, yet people want to race off, become clinicians and not give a thought to it after grad school. That seem irresponsible to me. How about this, the DSM-4 says that a catergorical appraoch is best when members of a diagnostic class are homogeneous, there are clear boundaries between classes, and when the different classes are mutaully exclusive (APA, 1994, page xxii). These idiots tell us this, which they are right about, even when any clinician worth thier salt know that a client is more likely than not to have more than one diagnosis. In fact, the national comorbidity study (NCS) shows that 79% of mental health clients meet the criteria for two or more disorders. This poses major problems not only for diagnosis but for research. How should you do it, should you only study people with one diagnosis? That has no ecological validity, or should you study those with wom sort of hdgepodge, then there is no order. This is what you get when you let psychiatrists call the shots! My muddled point is that many of the practitioners out there give nary a thought to things like this, and I'm not just talking about MA/MS I'm also talking about MDs and PhD/PsyDs who just want to practice, practice, practice. Naturally we will always be in need of practitioners, but we have a long way to go as a field.

 

[PsychStudent]

I haven't read all of the other posts, but I would definitely suggest not going to Alliant unless you do not have any research aspirations in the future. You will be at a *huge* disadvantage in competition for jobs w/ your peers. Plus, psychologists generally don't make that much, so dealing with a lot of loans will be very difficult.

 

[positivepsych]

psisci, I won't argue that it is what you can do that will be what you are judged on (did that make sense?). But do you really see people out there trying to coast by on thier credentials, it sounds like that is what you rail against. Look, I'll be up front, I'm interested in having a career rich in research, but not to the exclusion of clinical work. The way I currently see it, the mental health field is in a shambles, the way psychopathology is currently conceptualized by those practicing in the field is inconsistent with what reserach has been showing, yet people want to race off, become clinicians and not give a thought to it after grad school. That seem irresponsible to me. How about this, the DSM-4 says that a catergorical appraoch is best when members of a diagnostic class are homogeneous, there are clear boundaries between classes, and when the different classes are mutaully exclusive (APA, 1994, page xxii). These idiots tell us this, which they are right about, even when any clinician worth thier salt know that a client is more likely than not to have more than one diagnosis. In fact, the national comorbidity study (NCS) shows that 79% of mental health clients meet the criteria for two or more disorders. This poses major problems not only for diagnosis but for research. How should you do it, should you only study people with one diagnosis? That has no ecological validity, or should you study those with wom sort of hdgepodge, then there is no order. This is what you get when you let psychiatrists call the shots! My muddled point is that many of the practitioners out there give nary a thought to things like this, and I'm not just talking about MA/MS I'm also talking about MDs and PhD/PsyDs who just want to practice, practice, practice. Naturally we will always be in need of practitioners, but we have a long way to go as a field.

That was a great post, thank you Psyclops.

Regarding Alliant: I don't mean to be elitist like Jon Snow, but the quality of people that go into that program is pretty subpar. I live near one of their campuses, and it seems like more than 3/4 of the therapists in my area are Alliant/CSPP grads. I'm not sure how their practices are going, so I'm not going to judge, but I can only imagine.

Your grades seem good (though remember that it depends on where those grades are coming from). If you honestly think you can get into a fully-funded clinical psych program next year, it would save you a lot of money and might help your career in the long-run (if you want to do any sort of research).

 

[Neuro-Dr]

psisci, I won't argue that it is what you can do that will be what you are judged on (did that make sense?). But do you really see people out there trying to coast by on thier credentials, it sounds like that is what you rail against. Look, I'll be up front, I'm interested in having a career rich in research, but not to the exclusion of clinical work. The way I currently see it, the mental health field is in a shambles, the way psychopathology is currently conceptualized by those practicing in the field is inconsistent with what reserach has been showing, yet people want to race off, become clinicians and not give a thought to it after grad school. That seem irresponsible to me. How about this, the DSM-4 says that a catergorical appraoch is best when members of a diagnostic class are homogeneous, there are clear boundaries between classes, and when the different classes are mutaully exclusive (APA, 1994, page xxii). These idiots tell us this, which they are right about, even when any clinician worth thier salt know that a client is more likely than not to have more than one diagnosis. In fact, the national comorbidity study (NCS) shows that 79% of mental health clients meet the criteria for two or more disorders. This poses major problems not only for diagnosis but for research. How should you do it, should you only study people with one diagnosis? That has no ecological validity, or should you study those with wom sort of hdgepodge, then there is no order. This is what you get when you let psychiatrists call the shots! My muddled point is that many of the practitioners out there give nary a thought to things like this, and I'm not just talking about MA/MS I'm also talking about MDs and PhD/PsyDs who just want to practice, practice, practice. Naturally we will always be in need of practitioners, but we have a long way to go as a field.

There are clearly some good points in this posts. However, I have to come back to data from others posts on the "DSM love it or hate it" thread. Everyone doing research is by-in-large picking groups to study based on criterion. Are you studying depression based on MMPI-2, Scale 2, BDI, subjective reports, SCID interviews, your mom died, you watched a sad movie..... It is not appropriate to say that the DSM has "clean" findings and life is "dirty", this is no different from the research being done on the disorders in question. There is a rich history of field work in the DSM, with on average 6K-10K patients per revision. There is little to no research out there using this large of a sample.

We have psychologists insted of computers doing the assessment becasue of comorbidity. The research adds the anatomy (functional or structural). But the DSM goes back to Emil Kreaplin's work, not contemporary psychiatry.

I think all of these list-serves serve the same purpose...to allow the reader to get disperate opinions, research or argue them and then make some decisions on their own. I take it on faith that the original questions was simple a way to gather one set of data, to then be compared with others. This is a pro-research list-serve and that is fine as long as the reader keeps it in mind. My feeling is that the bias is more 60%-40%. I see few posts where people are saying no clinical work should be done at all.

I will also say that the clinical work is the more difficult (in my opinion). Research is a little detatched and requires a healthy knowledge of empirical design and stats. Clinical work brings up all kinds of issues, many largely out of consciouse or semi-conscious awareness. My experience has been that students and younger clinicians gravitate towards the "knowns" and fear the "unknowns" in practice. This is simple my opinion and as stated "should be taken with a grain of salt"

 

[Neuro-Dr]

Clinical work CAN be challenging, but most of the time I find I can put the old brain in neutral and coast. So much of it is rote, paint by the numbers stuff. Yes, there are challenging cases, but with experience, even those become more routine. I find research requires creativity and active problem solving more so than clinical work, at least for me. It's why I continue in research. I like having a hand in clinical work, but if I did it all the time I think I might become extremely bored.

edit: On second thought, I take that back. It totally depends on the type of clinical work and type of research. Pediatric neuropsychology is difficult. I know you have technicians, but having assessed those little buggers it can be a very challenging environment to get good clinical data.

There you have it! Two slightly different opinions from folks with similar backgrounds. I actually love the kids, it's the parents that drive me nuts.

 

[Psyclops]

There are clearly some good points in this posts. However, I have to come back to data from others posts on the "DSM love it or hate it" thread. Everyone doing research is by-in-large picking groups to study based on criterion. Are you studying depression based on MMPI-2, Scale 2, BDI, subjective reports, SCID interviews, your mom died, you watched a sad movie..... It is not appropriate to say that the DSM has "clean" findings and life is "dirty", this is no different from the research being done on the disorders in question. There is a rich history of field work in the DSM, with on average 6K-10K patients per revision. There is little to no research out there using this large of a sample.

We have psychologists insted of computers doing the assessment becasue of comorbidity. The research adds the anatomy (functional or structural). But the DSM goes back to Emil Kreaplin's work, not contemporary psychiatry.

I think all of these list-serves serve the same purpose...to allow the reader to get disperate opinions, research or argue them and then make some decisions on their own. I take it on faith that the original questions was simple a way to gather one set of data, to then be compared with others. This is a pro-research list-serve and that is fine as long as the reader keeps it in mind. My feeling is that the bias is more 60%-40%. I see few posts where people are saying no clinical work should be done at all.

I will also say that the clinical work is the more difficult (in my opinion). Research is a little detatched and requires a healthy knowledge of empirical design and stats. Clinical work brings up all kinds of issues, many largely out of consciouse or semi-conscious awareness. My experience has been that students and younger clinicians gravitate towards the "knowns" and fear the "unknowns" in practice. This is simple my opinion and as stated "should be taken with a grain of salt"

Well, I tend to be a little on the young and idealistic side. I shooting for inflamitory with that post, with a touch of disdain. Naturally the DSM has been a wonderful addition to the field and has brought us a long way. But, as I see it, it might be time to start pushing it in a new direction. I think many, if not most, would agree that Axis-II has outlived it's usefulness. The same might be true with Axis-I. It's something I've been thinking about alot these days and couldn't resist the urge to talk about it in a thread even though it was pretty to quite irrellivant. I find that both clinical work and research can be both challenging and stimulating, if I weren't interested in clinical work I would have pursed a purely academic degree. Just about the only type of practitioners I have never dealt (or very little) with are psychologists, but I've worked closely with nurses, psychiatrists, masters level counselors and social workers, both inpatient, outpatient, CMHCs, etc. I've been frustrated with what I see as a lack of understanding of psychopathology and psychology. This is not universal and I've worked with some amazing people, but as a whole (or mean level if you prefer) the field seems to suffer from a lack understanding, although usually not from compassion and caring. The will is there I just think that there could be a better way. Generally, the clinical psychologists whom I have worked with in academia have always inpressed me with the way they approach mental health, both academically and in practice. But anyway....I guess I just feel like I have to qualify my remarks.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

Don't let me stop you from venting. I consistently rage against those I perceive to water-down our field. I think the common ground that most of us share is "A little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not..."

 

[s3v_Clinical]

Hey all,
I've posted on other threads, but I figured b/c I started this one, I'll post here too. Thanks for everyone's advice. I've been extremely lucky and have gained entry into a funded program so I don't have to think about Alliant. I got my call on April 12!!