- Joined
- Jan 27, 2015
- Messages
- 309
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 4,681
- Pre-Psychology
PhD/PsyD Are Interviews Mandatory?
- Thread starter PsychMajorUndergrad18
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,504
- Reaction score
- 993
- Points
- 5,456
- Psychologist
For clinical, it's more or less mandatory. Getting invited to interview is the first step. Offers come after interviews. Some sites will allow phone interviews but most prefer in-person. You're probably going to want to meet the person you're going to work with for the next ~6 years...
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 19,520
- Reaction score
- 27,364
- Points
- 9,306
- Location
- Somewhere
- Psychologist
For admission to a PhD/reputable PsyD, it's essentially mandatory. I imagine you could swing it if you had crazy extenuating circumstances and your application was at the top of the pile, but I wouldn't plan on it.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2015
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 109
- Points
- 4,726
- Psychology Student
I had one school cover the cost of my hotel and flight and even my taxi to and from the airport which was an incredible help. This is pretty much unheard of, though.
I will say the students in the EdS program at my school didn't have to interview, but if you're going the doctorate route it's pretty much guaranteed.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,480
- Reaction score
- 1,006
- Points
- 5,466
- Location
- formerly from Atlanta, GA
- Psychologist
...And to add to this: Interviewers are definitely going to want to meet the person 1) who will be offered a funded spot (which means you become contracted to attend on the university's dime, i.e., potential return on investment), 2) who will be trusted to see patients (under close supervision), and 3) who will be working closely with the other great candidates in the incoming cohort. Our program had 15 (which is on the larger size of PhD cohorts), and we were told repeatedly that we were "hand-picked" with some idea that we would all get along - and we did. I made some terrific life-long friends in my cohort, and that's usually how it goes in my program (e.g., everyone remains close to those in similar cohort years).
So, just imagine...the assessment of prospective candidates will be pretty darn difficult without an in-person interview. Faculty interviewers want to get an interpersonal 'feel' for you in the room - Are you at ease? Likable? Awkward? Too anxious? Too calm? Arrogant? Timid? etc. And what might you be like with patients? How would you make someone feel who is coming to you for assistance for mental dysfunction/disorder, mood changes, substance use, etc.
All that said, I only know one person who was accepted via a Skype interview b/c the person lived in another country and ended up relocating to the U.S. to attend my program. This candidate ended up being lovely in person, so I'm sure Faculty were delighted with that Skype interview offer/risk involved.
D
deleted343839
I'd be worried about any clinical program that did not require an interview. Even many non-clinical programs have this policy.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2015
- Messages
- 309
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 4,681
- Pre-Psychology
Thank you all for the advice. I know for a fact that I definitely will be applying to non-clinical masters and doctoral programs in the future (with a few human resources programs as backup plans just in case) so I was wondering if its the same for masters level programs in psych? I also will be playing the diversity game (when you apply to programs far away from you [term coined by one of my professors not me]) so I just am worried that I am gonna being pay a ton of money in the end to visit these programs if I do get invited to visit.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2014
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 445
- Points
- 4,996
- Fellow [Any Field]
Some Master's programs will do interviews, mine did and most of my colleagues had to interview at their chosen schools. Yes it is expensive to travel to a school for an interview if you're applying far away, but the interview is for your benefit as well. You also want to like the people you're going to be working with, feel comfortable at the school, and also feel like the city is a place you can be for a little while. A Skype or phone interview just isn't sufficient for you or your POI to determine if its a good fit.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,321
- Reaction score
- 2,717
- Points
- 5,676
At a masters level, Some do and others don't. It depends on the program a lot more. Applications are a real expense.
We always say that, but we know that interviews predict so little of eventual outcome that it makes me wonder if its a worthwhile venture.
Basic interview questions account for like 10% of outcome iirc. Behavioral interviewing questions up the variance to around 40-ish% which is respectable, although even then many UG's don't know a large amount about the field they are going into and can't speak to many of the things we would want to ask for (clinical indications, strong research design). And for that matter, most of that could likely be gathered by phone. Of course, many want to see the campus and such, but I'm just not sure that it is entirely justifiable for the amount of money expected to be spent. As an empirical field, it makes me wonder sometimes.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 19,520
- Reaction score
- 27,364
- Points
- 9,306
- Location
- Somewhere
- Psychologist
I don't know, I see personality and fit as being a much larger issue in grad admissions than it is in internship and/or postdoc. As in the latter it's a MUCH smaller time frame, and a good amount of the foundational work is done. If I'm a faculty admitting a student that I'm supposed to mentor and have work with my other students for 5+ years, personality matters a not insignificant amount in that situation. At the point of interviews, everyone you bring in should have the chops to hack it based on their application, here's where you find out if this person is insufferable or not.
D
deleted343839
What outcomes are you referring to?
I've always been under the impression that the interview is as much a rule-out type of activity as a rule-in, maybe even more so in some programs. Perhaps the interview won't enable you to better predict grades, retention, match success, etc., but if you're going to spend 5+ years training someone there are other considerations to be made (interpersonal functioning, fit, showing up on time, stringing words together coherently on the fly, etc.). Just because we tend not to use explicit metrics for those things doesn't mean they don't matter.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,321
- Reaction score
- 2,717
- Points
- 5,676
In general. Hiring outcomes are tied very loosely to interview performance. I'm not aware of any literature on interview performance and clinical program outcomes (publication, clinical effectiveness, etc).
I agree though. It is used as a rule out. It just seems like a very ineffective rule-out given that roughly one out of each typical class of 6 or 7 will drop from the program, if I'm remembering my attrition rate statistics correctly. Not to mention that behaviorally (e.g., interpersonally), interviews don't offer a strong indication of what people are actually like to work with because the interview is such a different context. Not to say those ruled out would not have done worse (or better, really, its hard to say), but its just curious to me that we don't spend a good deal more energy/time developing selection processes for people.. given our field of evaluating and making determinations and recommendations for people.
As for showing up late and stringing things together on the fly.. I'm not sure those are good metrics. Some people take their time before responding and don't do as well on the fly. I'm not sure that makes them less qualified in any way. Likewise, those who are late are often lost between buildings, stuck in traffic, or something else. Life happens and I would hate to assume that the reason someone should be excluded is because of that. There are exceptions, of course, to both of these, but I would wager that they are the minority of cases and in those instances could probably be identified in other ways.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 901
- Reaction score
- 248
- Points
- 4,656
- Psychologist
Others have answered the OP, but I'll throw in to not underestimate the value of the interview for you. You get to see the town, the people you may work with, the facilities, experience the culture, and determine if its as good as it seemed "on paper". I know that helped me avoid one place for a masters program. Got invited for an interview, and while they wanted me in the end, it helped me recognize that I did not want them.
D
deleted343839
Fair point, but in the setting of most clinical doctoral programs this sounds like an intensive but thankless job. I doubt the stakes or incentives are high enough at most programs to devote resources to radically overhaul the selection process. In my program attrition was not unheard of but it was definitely less than one per cohort. Perhaps if attrition or terrible outcomes were a rampant problem the situation would be different, but given the oversupply of doctoral grads, a few drop-outs or flame-outs along the way is probably not a bad thing for the profession.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,321
- Reaction score
- 2,717
- Points
- 5,676
I generally agree. I wish the development of better selection was not at a single program level but rather a more national level in part because selection processes (in general) are horrible and, because like you said, its a thankless and undervalued job in a single program
The attrition is an average I've heard repeated several times and, as empirical as an antidote gets, have watched play out in several different (including both clinical and counseling) highly respectable doc programs in my area over the last few years. I believe the average for psych is around 20%, leading to the one per cohort number (although not entirely accurate given the disparate cohort numbers and program factors, etc).
some interesting general info on attrition in the broad field, but we tend to be on the lower end below other social sciences like sociology.
http://www.phdcompletion.org/resources/cgsnsf2008_sowell.pdf
D
deleted343839
That is interesting. I wonder how much attrition can even be prevented. Though it's sometimes a matter of poor preparation or mismatched expectations, sometimes "life happens" or people have an unexpected change of heart.
On another note, I just read a review of a recent book on the grad school admissions process that looks like an interesting/depressing read: https://www.insidehighered.com/news...e-phd-admissions-committees-review-candidates
On another note, I just read a review of a recent book on the grad school admissions process that looks like an interesting/depressing read: https://www.insidehighered.com/news...e-phd-admissions-committees-review-candidates
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,321
- Reaction score
- 2,717
- Points
- 5,676
That's a good question because, for sure, not all attrition can (or should) be stopped. Perhaps I should look into the higher education literature to see what research is out there. It makes me curious.
As for that book- you had me at "depressing read". That does sound good. I think that warrants an Amazon order. Thanks for the tip. I hope it makes out as a good plane read during interview flights.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2015
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 4,701
- Psychologist
Last edited:
