PhD/PsyD Are students more likely to get into a balanced Clinical PhD than a more research-based PhDs straight out of undergrad?

[natto]

Hi everyone,

I am looking to apply in this next cycle of Clinical Psychology PhD applications, however, I am a student entering my senior year of undergraduate study. I have a 3.81 GPA and have over 3 years of research experience, finishing up my undergraduate thesis, have two posters and submitting a few more, and was hoping to not have to take two extra years to do post-bacc research. I am also a registered behavioral tech in ABA, experience doing PCIT at camps for children with SM, and worked as a counselor at multiple camps for children with developmental disabilities. I love doing research but hope to have a balanced career between clinical and research work in the future, and therefore I want to apply to mostly programs that have my interest in parent-child relationships and parenting but are also balanced between research and clinical training.

I know that research oriented programs will definitely require more than undergraduate research, but as I would like to go to a more balanced program, I was wondering if my research experience is sufficient enough for this type of program and whether or not these balanced programs would possibly take clinical experiences into consideration? Are undergrads more likely to get into a balanced program than a research-oriented program straight out of undergrad, or are the odds and criteria all the same?

Thank you all in advance for all of your help!

Edit: fixed some typos

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[beginner2011]

Lack of experience working for and with PhD psychologists in addition to unprofessionalism (just being generally green) are going to limit competitiveness to any strong graduate program. Mentors will want to see some demonstration that their colleagues found you reliable and competent. It sounds like you have quite a bit of experience and would get letters that would speak to your reliableness/competence. Assuming references say positive things and you've generated some evidence of skill/ambition to participate in and produce research I would imagine you'd be as competitive for acceptance to research-oriented program as at a "more balanced" program (although I believe this is a false dichotomy). If you want to increase your odds of acceptance to a research-oriented program you'll probably need to get a few publications and connect with a PI who has NIH funding that will write you a letter of reference.

I'd highly recommend you carefully read this guide for prospective graduate students from one of the leading mentors in the field: http://mitch.web.unc.edu/files/2017/02/MitchGradSchoolAdvice.pdf

 

[Seven_Costanza]

Hi everyone,

I am looking to apply in this next cycle of Clinical Psychology PhD applications, however, I am a student entering my senior year of undergraduate study. I have a 3.81 GPA and have over 3 years of research experience, finishing up my undergraduate thesis, have two posters and submitting a few more, and was hoping to not have to take two extra years to do post-bacc research. I am also a registered behavioral tech in ABA, experience doing PCIT at camps for children with SM, and worked as a counselor at multiple camps for children with developmental disabilities. I love doing research but hope to have a balanced career between clinical and research work in the future, and therefore I want to apply to mostly programs that have my interest in parent-child relationships and parenting but are also balanced between research and clinical training.

I know that research oriented programs will definitely require more than undergraduate research, but as I would like to go to a more balanced program, I was wondering if my research experience is sufficient enough for this type of program and whether or not these balanced programs would possibly take clinical experiences into experiences? Are undergrads more likely to get into a balanced program than a research-oriented program straight out of undergrad, or are the odds and criteria all the same?

Thank you all in advance for all of your help!

I went to a scientifically rigorous program that had a couple people enter straight from undergrad. It’s more rare than if you took a gap year but when you’re good, you’re good.

 

[deleted343839]

One, maybe two, in my cohort (of 5) came straight from undergrad, and I was in a research-heavy program. If you are ready to apply this fall, go for it, and don't avoid more research-oriented programs that interest you because your odds of being accepted are probably not that much different than at a "balanced" program.

 

[psych.meout]

My more research-heavy program has had quite a few students directly from undergrad.

 

[PsychPsyance]

Our program is more balanced (but this varies a lot from lab to lab). I would say about half of our students come in straight from undergrad. It doesn't weigh in our decision at all though. A strong candidate is someone with solid research experience, good letters, good gpa and gre scores, and most importantly a good fit for the mentor. No level of experience can make up for a poor (or even mediocre) fit. I will say, that (IME) students coming straight in from UG often don't seem to be quite as ready for the shock of grad school. But, again, if you're a good fit, post-bac or not doesn't matter.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

I went to a strong research-oriented program straight out of undergrad (and am practicing in the clinical sphere predominately now). As others have mentioned, it's definitely possible. In my program, there's usually at least 1 person straight from undergrad. What's more important are the depth/breadth of research experience, GRE, good fit, and quality products (pubs, internships, etc.).

There are pros and cons either way. I enjoyed going directly from undergrad, as many of my colleagues who had "real" jobs beforehand had a rough time acclimating to going back to being a student, lower pay, etc.

 

[WisNeuro]

I was in a more balanced program. Took a year off to take a paid lab manager position in my area of interest, so I never really left research/academia. Similar to others, maybe 1-2 of a cohort of 5-7 came directly from undergrad. Time between undergrad and grad seemed to be an average of 2-3 years.

 

[cara susanna]

I got into a balanced PhD program right out of undergrad.

 

[natto]

Thank you so much for all of your replies! I am glad to hear of so many success stories for those coming straight out of undergrad!

I am still trying to strengthen my application even further and build depth in my research experience. What do you all suggest to do in terms of research to help an applicant stand out even more as an applicant, besides posters? How does an undergrad get anywhere near getting a publication and would not getting a publication really set me back?

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

It depends on your lab. It might be most helpful to approach either the graduate student or advisor that you are working under and discuss your goals with them. They can help give you a more realistic picture of whether a pub is possible/likely within that lab. I would recommend trying to get other "products" as well - travel grants, conference awards, paid internships if possible. Organizations like Psi Chi have awards/grants specifically for undergrads that are perfect for this. APA has some as well.