APA-accredited internship acceptance

[amy21]

Does anyone know roughly what individual criteria is looked at by internship sites to decide what PsyD applicants to accept? I'm looking at 2 schools in the Bay Area, Palo Alto U & the Wright Inst. Palo Alto has much better internship placement statistics, but I don't understand why because its academic standards don't appear to be any higher than the Wright Inst's.

Palo Alto is much more expensive, so I'm considering attending the Wright with the hope that I can get a good internship on personal aptitude rather than the school's name or connections. Is this wise?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cara susanna]

I'm not sure I'd recommend a non-research-based PsyD* to anyone interested in neuropsych or forensic psych, to be honest. You need strong research competence for those fields.

* I know that some PsyD programs actually do offer a lot of research training and opportunities, so I'm qualifying that statement.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm not sure I'd recommend a non-research-based PsyD* to anyone interested in neuropsych or forensic psych, to be honest. You need strong research competence for those fields.

* I know that some PsyD programs actually do offer a lot of research training and opportunities, so I'm qualifying that statement.

100% agree.

While I cannot speak much to what makes a person competitive for forensic positions, I can speak to the neuropsych part. As a neuropsychologist you need to be competent in numerous areas. You need to show competency in scholarly work (presentations, publications, etc), as well as your ability to apply knowledge in research and statistics to your clinical cases.

For example, the use of effort testing ("Is the patient putting forth adequate effort?") is a major component of both forensic and neuropsychological assessment. You need to have a strong grasp on the related research and also have a solid understanding of the statistical implications of a person's performance across different measures. Not all "Pass" or "Fail" performances are equal, and often the differences shows up statistically, which then needs to be compared with prior research on the patient population.

 

[NPIntern]

Of note, I am about to complete a PsyD program (although one with a notable research component and a required quantitative dissertation) and I have had no problems with procuring an APA accredited neuropsychology-track internship. I think it depends on where you do your clinical training. I have noticed stigma against the professional schools within neuropsychology, but if you attend a university-housed PsyD program (like mine), you should have no problem! I received excellent training both clinically and in research.

 

[amy21]

Thank you for this feedback!

To answer the questions: I am looking at PsyD programs over PhD programs mainly because I do not want to leave the Bay Area, which I would probably have to do to attend a PhD program. I also don't have the research background to get into such a program & I'd have to start at ground zero (volunteering in a lab, then working for at least a year as an assistant on low salary, then eventually applying to programs). Basically a PsyD program would be more geographically desirable & easier to pursue at this point. Geography is the reason I'm looking at the 2 PsyD schools I mentioned.

For funding, I have some resources available that would ultimately bring the cost of a PsyD program down, I would still have some debt. So I'm weary of incurring the debt but I would do it if I felt confident I could go get into the field I wanted. I've ruled out Palo Alto U. because the cost of prohibitive ($42k/year) as opposed to the Wright ($26k/year for only 3 years & then reduced cost).

I had thought of forensic work as a practical clinical occupation that could be developed without a strong research background (unlike neuropsych). I hadn't heard of research labs per se that overlapped with forensic interests (I know how ignorant I sound) & I didn't think of it as a research oriented field. If pursuing this specialty from a PsyD background is not a viable path, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with only counselor or therapist career options.

Palo Alto U. does focus more on 'research' & has tracks for these specialties, but admission doesn't require having a research background & it seems a little like students buy the research experience rather than earn it. Given the cost, I'm not sure if that's a good option either. I am basically hoping that being one of the stronger PsyD students with a legal background would be adequate (if not ideal) for at least forensic, if not neuropsych internships. It sounds like the consensus is No? What kind of a research or lab experience do psychologists who apply to forensic internship sites usually have?

 

[erg923]

I dont think forensic neuropsychology is appropriate for someone who doesnt like research. Neuropsychology requires that one is even more scientifically- minded than the average clinical psychologist and being successful in forensic neuropsychology requires one to either: be a well known name in the field via research and clinical work, OR, at least be a very up to date on the latest research and know how to counter it and discuss it intelligently.

 

[amy21]

Additionally, the Wright does have a Director who handles students' forensic interest & they say they there are internship opportunities with prisons (for example), but I don't think it's particularly well regarded or connected in terms of internship placement. It has one faculty member who is a psychiatrist in this field but it's certainly not known for its research (publications, etc.).

 

[erg923]

Thank you for this feedback!

To answer the questions: I am looking at PsyD programs over PhD programs mainly because I do not want to leave the Bay Area, which I would probably have to do to attend a PhD program.

Are you gonna limit your internship and post-doc fellowship years to the bay area too?

If so, have you researched what internships and post-docs are in the area that would be able to give you the experience necessary for your (very specific) career trajectory? Have you calculated the odds of getting both of these?

 

[amy21]

Of note, I am about to complete a PsyD program (although one with a notable research component and a required quantitative dissertation) and I have had no problems with procuring an APA accredited neuropsychology-track internship. I think it depends on where you do your clinical training. I have noticed stigma against the professional schools within neuropsychology, but if you attend a university-housed PsyD program (like mine), you should have no problem! I received excellent training both clinically and in research.

Thank you. Would you mind sharing the program you're at? The only program I know of that's affiliated with a research University is Rutgers in New Jersey. Do you have an opinion about private, professional schools (like the Wright or Palo Alto U) that have a research component but are independent?

 

[amy21]

Are you gonna limit your internship and post-doc fellowship years to the bay area too?

If so, have you research what internships and post-docs are in the area that would be able to give you the experience necessary for your (very specific) career trajectory? Have you calculated the odds of getting both of these?

I do not plan to limit internship/post doc training to the Bay Area. I'd be grateful to land such opportunities anywhere, so the odds would be a little better. But I would want to ultimately develop a career in the Bay Area. I'm not sure if limiting myself to Bay Area PsyD programs would hinder a career in forensic psychology (which I thought of as less research-oriented & more appropriate for PsyD training) than neuropsychology.

 

[erg923]

I do not plan to limit internship/post doc training to the Bay Area. I'd be grateful to land such opportunities anywhere, so the odds would be a little better. But I would want to ultimately develop a career in the Bay Area. I'm not sure if limiting myself to Bay Area PsyD programs would hinder a career in forensic psychology (which I thought of as less research-oriented & more appropriate for PsyD training) than neuropsychology.

Forensic psychology OR forensic neuropsychology? Big difference.

 

[amy21]

I have an interest in both-more the latter but I would settle for the former if it's more accessible.

 

[cara susanna]

Forensic psych is also very research-based. You need to have an empirical basis or justification for the techniques you use in in assessments and they have to hold up to cross-examination in court from people who want to discredit you. You also need to know the research behind jury selection and the problems with eye-witness testimony etc if you work with a court system.

I can speak to this because my program is very forensic-based, even though I am not in forensic psych myself.

And, yeah, forensic neuropsych would be even more hardcore.

 

[CriminalPsych]

Forensic psych is also very research-based. You need to have an empirical basis or justification for the techniques you use in in assessments and they have to hold up to cross-examination in court from people who want to discredit you. You also need to know the research behind jury selection and the problems with eye-witness testimony etc if you work with a court system.

I can speak to this because my program is very forensic-based, even though I am not in forensic psych myself.

And, yeah, forensic neuropsych would be even more hardcore.

+1 for this. Also, while it is not mandatory to publish in forensics, it really helps to publish in both scientific journals to be a credible expert and law journals to advertise yourself to potential clientele.

If you are serious about going into forensics, I have been reading "getting started in forensic psychology" by Eric Mart. Has a lot of insights about the work that may not have occurred to you.

 

[amy21]

It's not "no," it's just not ideal. Though realize that the issue is polarizing to many. I, personally, wouldn't recommend a PsyD for any reason, at this point. Obviously, lots of people disagree with me. More than 50% of new clinical psychology graduates come from PsyD programs.

Why would you personally not recommend any of them? I know there's a range of opinion out there & I appreciate your candid feedback. Are they less 'ideal' mainly because they lack rigorous research training that's needed for certain specialties?

 

[Pragma]

I do not plan to limit internship/post doc training to the Bay Area. I'd be grateful to land such opportunities anywhere, so the odds would be a little better. But I would want to ultimately develop a career in the Bay Area. I'm not sure if limiting myself to Bay Area PsyD programs would hinder a career in forensic psychology (which I thought of as less research-oriented & more appropriate for PsyD training) than neuropsychology.

I would not discount having a legal background as a huge factor in gaining entree into the forensic psychology specialty. However, as other posters have mentioned, research is paramount and part of the skill you'd be gaining in graduate school. PsyD programs are not typically known for this, although from what I know some are better than others at providing a background in research/statistics.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I do not plan to limit internship/post doc training to the Bay Area. I'd be grateful to land such opportunities anywhere, so the odds would be a little better. But I would want to ultimately develop a career in the Bay Area. I'm not sure if limiting myself to Bay Area PsyD programs would hinder a career in forensic psychology (which I thought of as less research-oriented & more appropriate for PsyD training) than neuropsychology.

Most likely...yes.

While traditional forensic work isn't ultra-competitive, securing a forensic-specific site will be competitive because there are a lot of students interested in forsensic work. The pay for internship can also be above average (e.g. BOP sites), which attracts folks who enjoy assessment work and don't mind working with people in the legal/prison system. As for forensic-neuropsychology...people work in the area, though it tends to be reserved for those who have a well established track record in one or both areas. I'd consider it the "deep end" of the pool because you need to know a lot about many things.

In general, students coming from a university-based Psy.D. program have a higher match rate than those coming from a free-standing program. A university-based Ph.D. program may open more doors because of the assumed research training, though you still need to show the research productivity. I know as a Psy.D. there can be an assumption that your research and stats training will not be on par with a Ph.D., but this can be overcome with having good research experiences and presentations/publications to show for your efforts. I'm at a top 5 research university now (as a clinican, not full-time researcher), and people just assume my research & stats skills are solid....I just wish I didn't get so many random stats questions from residents & attendings.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Thank you. Would you mind sharing the program you're at? The only program I know of that's affiliated with a research University is Rutgers in New Jersey. Do you have an opinion about private, professional schools (like the Wright or Palo Alto U) that have a research component but are independent?

Other reputable, university-based PsyD programs include: Baylor (probably the most competitive and well-respected, along with Rutgers), Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana State, Wright State (in OH--not funded but perhaps cheaper than most; know some very, very good people who have trained here, so I have a lot of respect for the program) , Widener (not funded but has a fairly strong rep if you can deal with the debt), Spadling (think they might be partially funded?), Immaculata (not funded, high cost, internship stats aren't that good, frankly), Xavier (partially funded, I think), Marshall (partially funded), etc. There are several others that I'm forgetting/not listing here--probably the most well-talked about and funded are Baylor, Rutgers, and Indiana U of PA.

I personally hold a strong belief in the necessity of truly university-based training for doctoral level degrees in psychology. People can certainly come out of professional schools (FSPS) and be competent practitioners, but I think the costs and consequences for both individual students and the field outweigh any real pros. JMHO.

 

[amy21]

Thank you. This is an illuminating, if somewhat disheartening, perspective.

QUOTE=Jon Snow;12014322]Without too much detail. . .

- Not offered at mainstream universities, you won't find psyd programs at even your average run of the mill state school (with a couple of exceptions with some older prototype programs)

- mostly offered by private schools and for profit types

- average six figure debt for a job with a mean income that isn't very high unless you are able to find and fill a niche. Because the programs are expanding, have expanded, rapidly, the market appears to be flooded, so competition is high. This should sound familiar (lawyer). Think tier 1 versus tier 4 law schools. It's a loose analogy in that there really isn't a tier 1 equivalent in psychology (nothing guarantees you a high income or a prestigious job). You can succeed from a lower rung law school, but it is challenging and you still have all that debt to contend with.

- APA match rate is low in general. I find this problematic because I think it diminishes the input that we, as a field, have in how our professionals are educated.

- I don't like ceding education in clinical psychology to 3rd and 4th rate universities and Devry like businesses. And, as the model has largely gone this way, it is my opinion that it is devaluing the field for the purpose of profit by exploiting people that want to be clinical psychologists and may not have all of the background pieces.

- on an individual level, I think it adds risk. If it were me, I would not be comfortable with the cost given the road to hoe. But, that's a personal, risk/reward calculation.

- the purpose of the psyd was to create a professional degree for clinical psychology that was not tied to the traditional mentorship model and research environment of academia. I don't think it worked out. the phd model is still the superior clinical model, if only because of quality of resources and opportunities.[/QUOTE]

 

[cara susanna]

LaSalle is another university-based PsyD with great research training. I have a lot of respect for them.

 

[amy21]

Thank you for your input. There's a range of opinion on the validity/value of the PsyD model. Do you feel that a PsyD needs to have a high quality research component to it to be a viable education for a psychologist? Or does it depend on what specialty you want to pursue?

I thought they were considered an alternative to the PhD model specifically because they emphasized clinical training instead of research training. It seems like for some types of clinical psychology (talk therapy), this may really be a better model, but that's not the case for the field of forensic psychology? I had not considered forensic psychology to be particularly research-oriented & I was not factoring that into the picture when deciding if a PsyD program (in this case, the Wright) would be an adequate vehicle to get me into the field.

Most likely...yes.

While traditional forensic work isn't ultra-competitive, securing a forensic-specific site will be competitive because there are a lot of students interested in forsensic work. The pay for internship can also be above average (e.g. BOP sites), which attracts folks who enjoy assessment work and don't mind working with people in the legal/prison system. As for forensic-neuropsychology...people work in the area, though it tends to be reserved for those who have a well established track record in one or both areas. I'd consider it the "deep end" of the pool because you need to know a lot about many things.

In general, students coming from a university-based Psy.D. program have a higher match rate than those coming from a free-standing program. A university-based Ph.D. program may open more doors because of the assumed research training, though you still need to show the research productivity. I know as a Psy.D. there can be an assumption that your research and stats training will not be on par with a Ph.D., but this can be overcome with having good research experiences and presentations/publications to show for your efforts. I'm at a top 5 research university now (as a clinican, not full-time researcher), and people just assume my research & stats skills are solid....I just wish I didn't get so many random stats questions from residents & attendings.

 

[amy21]

+1 for this. Also, while it is not mandatory to publish in forensics, it really helps to publish in both scientific journals to be a credible expert and law journals to advertise yourself to potential clientele.

If you are serious about going into forensics, I have been reading "getting started in forensic psychology" by Eric Mart. Has a lot of insights about the work that may not have occurred to you.

Thank you. I just downloaded this to my droid.

 

[erg923]

It seems like for some types of clinical psychology (talk therapy), this may really be a better model.

It does not matter what you are doing in your role a psychologist...I think most of us agree that you should be using the research that is out there (and know whats junk and whats not) and the utilizing science of psychology. While this is always important, I can think of no where would this be more important that in an Atkins death penalty case, right?

 

[wigflip]

LaSalle is another university-based PsyD with great research training. I have a lot of respect for them.

Unless I'm mistaken, Pepperdine's uni-based PsyD has a reasonable reputation as well, though it's in SoCal.

 

[Ollie123]

I thought they were considered an alternative to the PhD model specifically because they emphasized clinical training instead of research training. It seems like for some types of clinical psychology (talk therapy), this may really be a better model, but that's not the case for the field of forensic psychology? I had not considered forensic psychology to be particularly research-oriented & I was not factoring that into the picture when deciding if a PsyD program (in this case, the Wright) would be an adequate vehicle to get me into the field.

I think what you describe was the original intent, but unfortunately it has not exactly worked out that way. Many PhD programs are not "research-focused" in the sense that they expect everyone to go on to research careers, though still expect students to be informed users of the research literature (and this includes getting research experience while a grad student). You will get equal or more clinical training at these sorts of programs, and it will generally be of far higher quality than you will receive at many PsyD programs where they simply farm out training to any random community practitioner willing to take on their students, and don't have the resources necessary to provide graduate level education. While some exceptions exist, the PsyD has frequently become a "Diet PhD" with clinical training that isn't particularly impressive given its supposed to be the focus, and somewhere between minimal and no research training. Many of the PsyDs I've interacted with are (sadly) not much beyond undergrads in terms of research skills and knowledge. I routinely point it out in these threads, but I think its pretty telling that, last I checked, PhDs have (on average) MORE clinical hours than PsyDs when applying for internships. While there are some PsyD programs that provide solid training, the ones that don't make up an overwhelming percentage of the graduates and there seems to be a pretty strong (and seemingly growing) bias in many settings.

I agree with others that it seems like you are setting yourself up for a tough time. That doesn't mean it will be impossible, but if you want to aim high for your career its usually not a good plan to aim low for your education. If you need to stay in the Bay area, that makes this more difficult, but your law degree may help. I'm not sure what to say beyond that, but I do think its important you go into this with eyes open and recognize that if you have very specific (relatively competitive) goals, that may or may not be realizable down the road if you cut corners now. As for whether Wright is appropriate, I can't say (not familiar with the program).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Thank you for your input. There's a range of opinion on the validity/value of the PsyD model. Do you feel that a PsyD needs to have a high quality research component to it to be a viable education for a psychologist? Or does it depend on what specialty you want to pursue?

Absolutely. What makes a solid Psy.D. program is what makes a well-balance Ph.D. program worthwhile: a solid training in research, but with the intent to be used in clinical practice. This doesn't mean the person can't be an academic, but the thrust of the training is to create scientist-practitioners....and not a generic therapist. I think when the Psy.D. was developed, it was in response to the very research heavy Ph.D. programs like you'd find at the University of Minnosota or the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and not a balanced program like you'd find at KU.

Thirty years ago there were far fewer balanced programs, but now they are much more prevelant AND there are a ton of Psy.D. programs. As a Psy.D., I found the "average" research and statistics training at most Psy.D. programs is not on par as a balanced Ph.D. program. I didn't have a huge gap, but I definitely had to do some additional reading/learning to feel fully competent. If I took the stats class offered after the required one, I probably would have been fine, but 99.5% of the people who took that were Ph.Ds.

Even if a person plans on doing mostly psychotherapy, they still need to have solid research training to be a responsible consumer of research. Whether they get that training at a Ph.D. program or at a Psy.D....it doesn't much matter, as long as they get the training. If I were to do my training over, I'd definitely have gone to a Ph.D. program because I think the model offers the best balance in training; it seems far too easy for some Psy.D. programs to drift farther away from research...which is a problem for the field.

 

[amy21]

Absolutely. What makes a solid Psy.D. program is what makes a well-balance Ph.D. program worthwhile: a solid training in research, but with the intent to be used in clinical practice. This doesn't mean the person can't be an academic, but the thrust of the training is to create scientist-practitioners....and not a generic therapist. I think when the Psy.D. was developed, it was in response to the very research heavy Ph.D. programs like you'd find at the University of Minnosota or the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and not a balanced program like you'd find at KU.

Thirty years ago there were far fewer balanced programs, but now they are much more prevelant AND there are a ton of Psy.D. programs. As a Psy.D., I found the "average" research and statistics training at most Psy.D. programs is not on par as a balanced Ph.D. program. I didn't have a huge gap, but I definitely had to do some additional reading/learning to feel fully competent. If I took the stats class offered after the required one, I probably would have been fine, but 99.5% of the people who took that were Ph.Ds.

Even if a person plans on doing mostly psychotherapy, they still need to have solid research training to be a responsible consumer of research. Whether they get that training at a Ph.D. program or at a Psy.D....it doesn't much matter, as long as they get the training. If I were to do my training over, I'd definitely have gone to a Ph.D. program because I think the model offers the best balance in training; it seems far too easy for some Psy.D. programs to drift farther away from research...which is a problem for the field.

Thank you. Are there ANY PsyD programs you think have credible enough research training? Alternatively, if I have to stay in the Bay Area I could look at some doctoral programs that have a number of interesting emphases but are not 'clinical' programs (like UC Davis)..

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Sure. Quite a few of the uni-based programs offer solid all-around training. I looked at Baylor, Rutgers, and Loyola (MD), and all are solid. I've also met ppl from IUoP, and Xavier...both were solid researchers & clinicians. Ppl can seek out additional training and be fine, but I would hope that level of training be required at a program.

 

[amy21]

It does not matter what you are doing in your role a psychologist...I think most of us agree that you should be using the research that is out there (and know whats junk and whats not) and the utilizing science of psychology. While this is always important, I can think of no where would this be more important that in an Atkins death penalty case, right?

You mean because of the importance of empirical evidence in deciding the case, or the precedent it set? I think all professions can & should be heavily influenced by research (no more so than law, where so much is at stake). I just thought students training to be forensic psychologists could study others' research from afar & learn from it rather than being in the trenches (labs) & procuring original results. I didn't think of hands on research ability as part of the forensic psychologist skill set. But I guess from what I've read that that was a bad assumption.

 

[amy21]

It is a difference of opinion. Graduate school, from a student's perspective, is about putting them in a position to do what they want to do. You can do it from the path you've chosen, but there are easier paths and some would argue better paths.

Ok, for those who think research training is an important skill for an aspiring forensic psychologist to have, is there a type of lab experience you'd recommend seeking (prior to applying even to graduate programs) that would be useful or would demonstrate a relevant interest? Or departments at any schools where forensic data is examined?

 

[Duck Duck Goose]

Check out the average student debt for internship applicants. PsyD students have about 120,000 just from the PsyD program alone. PhD is waaaaaay lower (can't remember but it's easily available from the APPIC survey results on the appic.org site). I'm a rarity as a PsyD student who has 0 student debt but the vast majority of my classmates have >70k in debt from grad school, not including undergrad or other schooling. Average psychologist salary is in the 60s. Not knowing exactly what you'd like to do, I'd recommend looking into other degrees if you're geographically limited. Psychology training, as it is now, requires a lot of traveling or moving (and that's why people who are geographically limited match at a much lower rate than other students). Good luck.

 

[erg923]

Ok, for those who think research training is an important skill for an aspiring forensic psychologist to have, is there a type of lab experience you'd recommend seeking (prior to applying even to graduate programs) that would be useful or would demonstrate a relevant interest? Or departments at any schools where forensic data is examined?

You're running into a backlash and bias against professional school programs. Simple as that.

I think you're misunderstanding the overarching point though. No one is going to tell you what to research and/or what research is important. It depends. It depends on YOUR interests. That's a match YOU will have to find. And you you don't have any research interests (or at least some kind of intellectual curiosity about psychological phenomena), this field probably isnt for you anyway.

We are arguing for a certain training model. We think (or actually, we know) its vastly important for the kind of work you want to do. John Q. Neuropsychologist in private practice can, and probably will, get dragged in to court from time to time. John Q. Neuropsychologist from the private practice will probably NOT be a highly sought after (sucessful) "forensic neuropsychologist" unless he has a kick-ass CV and some pubs and specialization. See what I mean?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

You're running into a backlash and bias against professional school programs. Simple as that.

I think you're misunderstanding the overarching point though. No one is going to tell you what to research and/or what research is important. It depends. It depends on YOUR interests. That's a match YOU will have to find. And you you don't have any research interests (or at least some kind of intellectual curiosity about psychological phenomena), this field probably isnt for you anyway.

We are arguing for a certain training model. We think (or actually, we know) its vastly important for the kind of work you want to do. John Q. Neuropsychologist in private practice can, and probably will, get dragged in to court from time to time. John Q. Neuropsychologist from the private practice will probably NOT be a highly sought after (sucessful) "forensic neuropsychologist" unless he has a kick-ass CV and some pubs and specialization. See what I mean?

erg's last point in particular can be important with respect to finding success in forensic neuropsychology, which is an especially competitive (and at times cut-throat) sub-specialty. All of the neuropsychologists I know who dedicate any significant portion of their time to forensic work (admittedly this is a small N) are well-regarded in the field largely because of their prolific research careers.

 

[amy21]

You're running into a backlash and bias against professional school programs. Simple as that.

I think you're misunderstanding the overarching point though. No one is going to tell you what to research and/or what research is important. It depends. It depends on YOUR interests. That's a match YOU will have to find. And you you don't have any research interests (or at least some kind of intellectual curiosity about psychological phenomena), this field probably isnt for you anyway.

We are arguing for a certain training model. We think (or actually, we know) its vastly important for the kind of work you want to do. John Q. Neuropsychologist in private practice can, and probably will, get dragged in to court from time to time. John Q. Neuropsychologist from the private practice will probably NOT be a highly sought after (sucessful) "forensic neuropsychologist" unless he has a kick-ass CV and some pubs and specialization. See what I mean?

Ok-yes I have gotten the message (unfortunately) & I do understand the bias- if it's a bias. There have been a lot of clear arguments for why a phd would be a better, more rigorous preparation for research & clinical training than a psyd. I tend to have a 'means to an ends' professional attitude where I seek to determine what I need to learn to do "X" & then try to learn it, rather than exploring what interests me. It's hard to break out of that way of thinking.

I have a natural curiosity about this field & I will poke around a bit to see what's happening in it. i'll read the book. But realistically I don't think I could make the sacrifice to start over, volunteer in a lab & apply to phd schools around the country... so i am considering the psyd route with the understanding that i might be able to find the research opportunities & training to get into a more competitive field. or perhaps not. i appreciate the honest feedback from all.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Absolutely. What makes a solid Psy.D. program is what makes a well-balance Ph.D. program worthwhile: a solid training in research, but with the intent to be used in clinical practice. This doesn't mean the person can't be an academic, but the thrust of the training is to create scientist-practitioners....and not a generic therapist. I think when the Psy.D. was developed, it was in response to the very research heavy Ph.D. programs like you'd find at the University of Minnosota or the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and not a balanced program like you'd find at KU.

Thirty years ago there were far fewer balanced programs, but now they are much more prevelant AND there are a ton of Psy.D. programs. As a Psy.D., I found the "average" research and statistics training at most Psy.D. programs is not on par as a balanced Ph.D. program. I didn't have a huge gap, but I definitely had to do some additional reading/learning to feel fully competent. If I took the stats class offered after the required one, I probably would have been fine, but 99.5% of the people who took that were Ph.Ds.

Even if a person plans on doing mostly psychotherapy, they still need to have solid research training to be a responsible consumer of research. Whether they get that training at a Ph.D. program or at a Psy.D....it doesn't much matter, as long as they get the training. If I were to do my training over, I'd definitely have gone to a Ph.D. program because I think the model offers the best balance in training; it seems far too easy for some Psy.D. programs to drift farther away from research...which is a problem for the field.

ITA. Tbh, I think reputable university-based PsyD programs (Baylor, Rutgers, Wright State, La Salle, Xavier, IU-P, Indiana State, Loyola, etc) are on par with many balanced PhD programs in terms of research/clinical training balance (disclaimer: I attend a balanced-ish PhD program but an R1, so there's probably some added pressure to publish that might not be there if we were at a non-R1) and general training quality. I know of a couple of balanced PhD programs that, although they offer solid research training and do have occasional graduates who chose to going to academic or research positions, are probably best described as clinical-leaning at heart. I think it's a shame that very solid university PsyD programs are often equated with FSPS. I don't think it's really a PhD/PsyD issue so much as a university-based/FSPS--and to a lesser extent, funded/unfunded--one.

I also think research involvement can vary depending on the student, but that's it's easier to de-emphasis research relative to your program's resources than it is to make a less research-rich environment more research heavy. I've seen the latter done quite impressively, so it's possible, but I think it's harder. For example, in my R1 program, I know students who run the gammet from having zero publications at all to having 7 and counting as a second year. The program expects some research involvement, but what that looks like can really vary--from heavy involvement in two labs to minimal involvement in one. (Disclaimer: This could very well NOT be true at all for Wisconsins, Michigans, Yales, etc--i.e., VERY research-heavy programs--of the world).I don't have any official stats, but I'd guess the majority of students typically graduate with 0-1 journal articles, with a decent number in the 2-3 range, and a few outliers in the 5+ range. Even though this isn't a really research heavy program, having the resources associated with an R1 makes it possible for students with the right mix of ambition and luck (and good mentorship) to build impressive publication records. That's still possible at a program with fewer research resources, but it'll be even harder, and publishing isn't easy under any circumstances,

 

[deleted176373]

I'm not sure I'd recommend a non-funded non-research-based PsyD* to anyone.

See, I fixed it for you!!!

 

[busybusybusy]

One thing to think about since you're interested in forensics...

Before applying to programs I was told by a few psychologists in the field that unless you attend a respected APA accredited program and an APA accredited internship you can kiss a lot of forensic opportunities goodbye. The reasoning behind it was that many lawyers (so you may understand this) will refuse to hire you to conduct their assessments because you will not hold up in court as a worthwhile "expert". Pretty much if a defense attorney or a prosecutor can show any reason to question your knowledge you won't be worth it to hire. Now, if you wanted to work in a correctional facility or state hospital that may not matter as much, I don't know, but if you have a desire to do work where you will be testifying (where you make some good money) you need to make sure your credentials are not able to be questioned.

 

[Pragma]

One thing to think about since you're interested in forensics...

Before applying to programs I was told by a few psychologists in the field that unless you attend a respected APA accredited program and an APA accredited internship you can kiss a lot of forensic opportunities goodbye. The reasoning behind it was that many lawyers (so you may understand this) will refuse to hire you to conduct their assessments because you will not hold up in court as a worthwhile "expert". Pretty much if a defense attorney or a prosecutor can show any reason to question your knowledge you won't be worth it to hire. Now, if you wanted to work in a correctional facility or state hospital that may not matter as much, I don't know, but if you have a desire to do work where you will be testifying (where you make some good money) you need to make sure your credentials are not able to be questioned.

Yeah, I have heard the same thing. Also, if you plan to do any forensic work in neuropsych, forget about it if you aren't going to get board-certified.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Board certification should be the standard for anyone who regularly does forensic or neuropsych work, especially if they are actively involved in legal cases. It is much easier for the opposing counsel to discredit you and your findings if your training has any areas of weakness or deviates from the 'gold standard' of the profession. If you go in with anything less than APA-acred program, APA-acred internship, formal forensic post-doc, and boarding...expect to be questioned about your training and be ready to defend why you lack boarding, formal post-doc, etc.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Board certification should be the standard for anyone who regularly does forensic or neuropsych work, especially if they are actively involved in legal cases. It is much easier for the opposing counsel to discredit you and your findings if your training has any areas of weakness or deviates from the 'gold standard' of the profession. If you go in with anything less than APA-acred program, APA-acred internship, formal forensic post-doc, and boarding...expect to be questioned about your training and be ready to defend why you lack boarding, formal post-doc, etc.

This does seem to be becoming the case, yes. In the past, and with accomplished individuals who have an established expertise and body of work, it hasn't been as much of an issue. And while you could still likely defend not going the formal post-doc and boarding route (as it's not legally required), with the process becoming more widespread, if you're going to practice in an adversarial setting, you'll save yourself a LOT of headaches by obtaining the certification.

 

[amy21]

One thing to think about since you're interested in forensics...

Before applying to programs I was told by a few psychologists in the field that unless you attend a respected APA accredited program and an APA accredited internship you can kiss a lot of forensic opportunities goodbye. The reasoning behind it was that many lawyers (so you may understand this) will refuse to hire you to conduct their assessments because you will not hold up in court as a worthwhile "expert". Pretty much if a defense attorney or a prosecutor can show any reason to question your knowledge you won't be worth it to hire. Now, if you wanted to work in a correctional facility or state hospital that may not matter as much, I don't know, but if you have a desire to do work where you will be testifying (where you make some good money) you need to make sure your credentials are not able to be questioned.

Thank you. I also heard that a lot of employers (like the Federal Bureau of Prisons) will only hire from APA-accredited internships. So my concern is that the psyd wouldn't have enough solid research/clinical training to make me competitive for those internships.

 

[erg923]

Thank you. I also heard that a lot of employers (like the Federal Bureau of Prisons) will only hire from APA-accredited internships. So my concern is that the psyd wouldn't have enough solid research/clinical training to make me competitive for those internships.

Just FYI, there is very little npsych opps in the BOP internships. Forensic eval rotations that have a cogntive etsting componet are common place of course, but if true clinical neuropsychology was your passion, there's not much of that.

 

[amy21]

On an unrelated note, I'd welcome any info generally about the the kind of research experience that makes applicants competitive to clinical phd programs. How much research experience do people typically have? Is it full time job experience, or experience obtained as an undergrad RA? Is it usually obtained by contacting professors in labs directly who are working on areas of interest? I read on one post that some people use Masters programs to also get more general 'research' preparation.

What if an applicant can't obtain research experience that correlates heavily with their area of interest? For example, just to test the waters I contacted labs at a local research-driven University & the labs that expressed an interest in me weren't in my top areas of interest (one was a 'baby' lab & I'm most interested in forensic work, which I'm not even sure where I'd get relevant research exposure, or neuropsych testing).

I've also heard that successful phd applicants are personally selected by professors who want them in their labs & admissions tells the professors whether the applicants' #'s are acceptable or not. But from the posts I read, the applications process sounds more like a (generic) college admissions process where test scores, essays & resumes are evaluated by an admissions board?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Just FYI, there is very little npsych opps in the BOP internships. Forensic eval rotations that have a cogntive etsting componet are common place of course, but if true clinical neuropsychology was your passion, there's not much of that.

Good pt erg923.

There is also a pretty big contrast in the training backgrounds and the types of cases seen by a forensic psychologist (capacity evals, psych evals, etc) and a neuropsychologist who gets involved with forensic-related cases (TBI, medical error, etc).

What if an applicant can't obtain research experience that correlates heavily with their area of interest?

Many people won't be able to work in their exact area of interest, but the core skills can still be learned: recruiting subjects, data collection, data entry, lit review, stats/data crunching, etc. There is not an expectation that if you want to study depression rates in early onset Alzheimer's....you must have prior experience working in a lab that does Alzheimer's & mood disorder work. Mentors want to know that you know what research is about, can handle the basics, and that you have a true interest in the actual work...and not just a passing "crush" on the thought of doing research.

Research work is not glamorous. Research work as an undergrad/RA is really not glamorous. I had a friend who's first research position was to watch hours and hours of video of children interacting, and she had to code every behavioral interaction according to the study parameters. Ouch.

I'd recommend reading the comic Piled Higher & Deeper, as it can be spot on about the day to day issues with being a grad student. The characters are all hard-science, but many of the same issues cross over disciplines. You really need to want to learn a lot about a subject area because to do quality work you really need to turn over all of the 'rocks' out there by learned things about related areas.

I've also heard that successful phd applicants are personally selected by professors who want them in their labs & admissions tells the professors whether the applicants' #'s are acceptable or not. But from the posts I read, the applications process sounds more like a (generic) college admissions process where test scores, essays & resumes are evaluated by an admissions board?

The first cut at most schools is done administratively: is the application complete, do they have at least X.XX GPA and XXXX GRE, do they have at least the minimum # of required psych classes, do they have research experience, etc. Programs often have a 'cutoff' score they look for, typically 1200-1300 on the GRE (I don't know what that equates to w. the new GRE...back when I took it, they still had a PAPER option!)

Being able to make contact with a potential mentor can sometimes help mitigate a lower GPA or GRE...but sometimes they are limited with what they can "sell" the department on. If you have a 2.9 GPA and 900 GRE (old scoring), your chances fo getting into a funded program is next to nothing...and if they really want you, they may recommend getting a Masters first and trying again in a couple of years.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The first cut at most schools is done administratively: is the application complete, do they have at least X.XX GPA and XXXX GRE, do they have at least the minimum # of required psych classes, do they have research experience, etc. Programs often have a 'cutoff' score they look for, typically 1200-1300 on the GRE (I don't know what that equates to w. the new GRE...back when I took it, they still had a PAPER option!)

Being able to make contact with a potential mentor can sometimes help mitigate a lower GPA or GRE...but sometimes they are limited with what they can "sell" the department on. If you have a 2.9 GPA and 900 GRE (old scoring), your chances fo getting into a funded program is next to nothing...and if they really want you, they may recommend getting a Masters first and trying again in a couple of years.

To add a bit to this point--there are situations in which the POI can essentially circumvent the traditional admissions process (it's happened with the last few students my advisor has taken). Basically, this occurs when the POI knows you and/or your work well (usually either through having worked with you in their lab directly, or through a colleague who highly recommends you). I don't know the specifics, but I do know that in the case of my lab, the students didn't ever formally interviewed here, although they did have to fill out applications. They essentially knew beforehand, though, that they were going to receive an offer.

However, these scenarios represent a significant minority of all acceptances. In general, you'll apply to the school, will list a POI or three with whom you'd like to work, and will interview with the program if you're selected. After that, when it comes to actual acceptances, either the department/admissions committee as a whole will select you after which you'll try to find a mentor, or your specific mentor will choose you after the department has told them how many new student funding slots will be available. This latter case might be what you (amy21) were referring to when you asked about professors personally selecting applicants.

 

[amy21]

To add a bit to this point--there are situations in which the POI can essentially circumvent the traditional admissions process (it's happened with the last few students my advisor has taken). Basically, this occurs when the POI knows you and/or your work well (usually either through having worked with you in their lab directly, or through a colleague who highly recommends you). I don't know the specifics, but I do know that in the case of my lab, the students didn't ever formally interviewed here, although they did have to fill out applications. They essentially knew beforehand, though, that they were going to receive an offer.

However, these scenarios represent a significant minority of all acceptances. In general, you'll apply to the school, will list a POI or three with whom you'd like to work, and will interview with the program if you're selected. After that, when it comes to actual acceptances, either the department/admissions committee as a whole will select you after which you'll try to find a mentor, or your specific mentor will choose you after the department has told them how many new student funding slots will be available. This latter case might be what you (amy21) were referring to when you asked about professors personally selecting applicants.

Yes, thank you. So say a candidate hasn't personally contacted or doesn't know any POI's (professors of interest?), but has high #'s, research experience & interests that match certain labs or POI's. Does that candidate have any shot of being interviewed if he/she sends an application to admissions? Does admissions forward candidates to POI's to decide who to interview?

 

[amy21]

To add a bit to this point--there are situations in which the POI can essentially circumvent the traditional admissions process (it's happened with the last few students my advisor has taken). Basically, this occurs when the POI knows you and/or your work well (usually either through having worked with you in their lab directly, or through a colleague who highly recommends you). I don't know the specifics, but I do know that in the case of my lab, the students didn't ever formally interviewed here, although they did have to fill out applications. They essentially knew beforehand, though, that they were going to receive an offer.

However, these scenarios represent a significant minority of all acceptances. In general, you'll apply to the school, will list a POI or three with whom you'd like to work, and will interview with the program if you're selected. After that, when it comes to actual acceptances, either the department/admissions committee as a whole will select you after which you'll try to find a mentor, or your specific mentor will choose you after the department has told them how many new student funding slots will be available. This latter case might be what you (amy21) were referring to when you asked about professors personally selecting applicants.

Yes-thank you. So if an applicant doesn't know or hasn't personally contacted any POI's (professors of interest?) at a school but has high #'s, research training, an interest relevant to a lab/prof & applies through admissions, that candidate has a viable shot at getting an interview or getting in? Does admissions forward certain candidates to professors or depts to decide who to interview? Or is admissions comprised of people on the faculty?

 

[amy21]

Thank you, yes. I'm not sure if this posted but I wanted to clarify- if a phd candidate who doesn't know or hasn't contacted any POI's (professors of interest) but has high #'s, solid research training, interests that match certain labs/professors applies through the admissions process, does that person have a shot at getting interviewed/accepted? Does admissions forward potential candidates to prof's to decide who to interview, or is admissions comprised of the faculty the candidate would work for?

 

[cara susanna]

You don't have to contact them. I only got interviews at places where I didn't contact POIs, haha.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thank you, yes. I'm not sure if this posted but I wanted to clarify- if a phd candidate who doesn't know or hasn't contacted any POI's (professors of interest) but has high #'s, solid research training, interests that match certain labs/professors applies through the admissions process, does that person have a shot at getting interviewed/accepted? Does admissions forward potential candidates to prof's to decide who to interview, or is admissions comprised of the faculty the candidate would work for?

As JS mentioned, yes, they have a viable shot. I would actually imagine that the majority of applicants, and probably even the majority of accepted applicants, have had relatively little contact of any significance with their selected POIs prior to admission. I emailed each of the professors with which I'd hoped to work way back when I was applying to briefly express my interest and ask if they were taking students that year; beyond that, pretty much nothing.

And yes, in general, programs will forward your application to the POI you've selected, assuming the program goes by the mentor model. Not all programs do, though, so in that case I'd imagine the committee reviews all apps and makes all decisions.