Been There, Done That PhD students/grads: General Things to Consider When Making a Decision?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
EekVonBlergh

EekVonBlergh

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
114
Reaction score
201
Members do not see this ad.
As we are now beginning to attend interviews for PhD programs, what are the important things we need to consider when making a decision to accept an offer (or even to decide between offers)?

Of course, things like being APA accredited, solid APA internship match, funding, and personality/research fit with POI are all huge considerations, but are there other things that new candidates may not be aware of at this stage that you been there, done thats may be able to share?

For example, is it really important to be able to co-author during grad school? I'm assuming it is, but is there an average number of pubs we should have before applying to internship? How important is it that your POI's research match is super similar to your own? What are some things that you considered/wish you would've considered when making your decisions?

Thank you for your responses, I really do appreciate it! 😍
 
I think the lack of responses is due to the question being extremely vague and difficult to answer.

I would say it is extremely important to be able to not just co-author, but first-author multiple manuscripts during graduate school. I would not even consider attending a school where that isn't possible. If one's goals are purely clinical I would worry about this slightly less. However, I would worry significantly about the training at any school where its not even an option. Any decent program should at least be able to provide this as a possibility. Most schools have you do both a thesis and a dissertation (though there are exceptions)...if students can't publish them or there isn't an expectation that they be done well enough to be publishable (regardless of whether or not students actually follow through and do so)...that's a sign of pretty shoddy training.

It matters a great deal if your POIs interests are similar to your own if you want a career in research. Again, less so if that isn't the case...but you still probably want them to be similar just for your own happiness.
 
Thanks Ollie! I know the question is pretty vague, as I'm not exactly sure what I am looking for, but I still thought it may be helpful for us to hear if there were certain considerations people overlooked that they wish they hadn't, etc.

I appreciate your responses regarding authorship as well; I hadn't anticipated a huge distinction between first-author and co-author, so that is definitely something to keep in mind. I also hadn't realized that some programs don't require a thesis and dissertation, so thank you for the heads up to pay attention to that particular requirement.
 
Hopeyhope, which schools are you deciding between? Now that I've got an acceptance, I'm starting to think about the deciding factors too.

The things that pop out to me, outside of research productivity (which is definitely important for setting yourself apart in the internship and job markets) is quality of life on the campus and in the area, cost of living, the feeling you get from the other grad students in the program (not that they need to be your best friends but if they seem snipey and competitive or if they seem friendly and laid-back, for example). Also how invested does your potential mentor seem in his students, and in teaching? The weather plays a role, since my choices will be so geographically disparate.

But ultimately, I think most people decide on a program based on one big factor: funding. So that's probably going to decide it for me too.
 
Congrats again on your acceptance moveablefeastings! :highfive:

For me personally mentor-match is really important because I tend to struggle when there is a lot of interpersonal tension, so that is something that I am weighting very heavily. Also, of course I am taking funding into account, but luckily (?) my work in the past few years has either been AmeriCorps (which is the teeniest stipend) or nannying/tutoring (which also doesn't bring in the big bucks). So, it is very likely that I will already be making more than I am used to! Although, cost of living is definitely a consideration, as is opportunities for my spouse to find work.

Research productivity is something I need to consider more, as like I mentioned earlier I didn't recognize the importance of first-authorship vs. co-authorship. I know this is probably a dumb question, but are there any other big indicators of research experience (aside from what Ollie mentioned about thesis/dissertation) to make sure the program offers?

Regarding your first question- I'm not technically deciding between any, but I have my acceptance (!!) from Univ Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and interviews coming up at Purdue, Northern Illinois Univ., and then Southern Methodist Univ. I'm very happy with UIUC so if I don't receive any other offers I will be ecstatic to attend, but I thought this would be a good way for current/past students to share what was important in their decisions.
 
Personally, I chose based on the CVs of the current students in my prospective lab/jobs of former students...I saw that I would get what I needed to be competitive for an academic career. Also, I just felt like I really fit in w/ the students in the program and lab and would be comfortable and happy there for the next few years. I think it's important to make sure the program fits with your goals and also is somewhere you will be happy/as least not miserable for the next several years.
 
One thing I REALLY wish I had asked other grad students during my interviews was "Are you happy?"-- about the program in general, about their life here outside of the program, about their relationship with their mentor. Are students able to be enthusiastic and specific about what they like? Relatedly, are program faculty able to be forthright in addressing concerns that applicants might have (for example, a poor attrition/poor match rate in the past few years) and discussing specific steps that the program has taken to address these issues?

I think it's easy and natural, when you're in the midst of the application/interviewing craziness, to think that because the mentor's research interests match yours on paper, and because they seem like a normal enough person in real life, that it would be a good match. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case. If the mentor's grad students appear depressed/withdrawn/ambivalent, or if they can't name several specific positive qualities (and major ones, not just that the mentor replies to e-mails within a reasonable time period, etc.) about the mentor, that needs to be a red flag.

I've been through the PhD application rounds twice (once before my master's program, and once after), and I can say that at least for me, no acceptances and having to apply again would still be better than being stuck in a bad program or with a bad mentor.
 
I agree.

One of the things I would ask to get at the "happiness" factor is your mentor's mentorship approach. What's your mentor's style- e.g., hands on, hands off, do they care about students as people? An advisor's "fit" is about so much more than their research, and it's easy for them to seem nice during the interviews. You need to get a good sense of how they really work and supervise and what they expect, and decide whether that aligns with what works best for your working style.

The other thing to consider is the general culture of the program. Does the program put students' individual welfare before their productivity? Does the program make students compete for funding spots? Are faculty at odds? I would put a supportive faculty and collaborative cohort above a super publishing program, because it's hard to be successful when you're miserable.
 
Going back in time, I would truly ponder WHY I want to get a PhD in psychology. And if it is truly a good enough reason to potentially be $100,000 in debt and question your sanity periodically. 😀

For instance - love of research? Be a research assistant (bachelor in psych).
Love of helping mentally ill? Be a psychiatric nurse (bachelors/masters).
Love of therapy? Be a therapist (masters).
Love of teaching? Be a teacher (bachelors).
Love of reading? Book club.
Love of being in school? Take community education classes and take up a hobby.
Need personal growth, to repair yourself, or receive wisdom from others? Get therapy.
Need to make friends? Join a club.
Want to make money? Hmmm... there's plenty of other ways.

Now the only way I have justified such a career choice as a doctoral degree in Psychology is when you want all of the above (or some of it, give or take a few) and don't want just one, NOT doing it because you haven't figured it out yet. That's my two cents atleast.
 
Last edited:
Just as a differing view though, one can get through grad school $0 in debt. I actually made money in grad school, enough to contribute to an IRA periodically. But yeah, we generally don't do it for the money. Lot's of other things I could have easily done and made twice the money. I happen to enjoy what I do immensely, so maybe I'll keep at it a while longer 🙂
 
Thank you all SO much for the responses. I definitely agree that it can be difficult in this process to remember that it isn't just about getting in *anywhere*, but about getting in where we can truly thrive and be successful. Those are some great questions to ask to gauge the happiness of the department, and absolutely something to keep in mind. Honestly, initially I wasn't sure if I was putting too much weight on personality fit with mentor, so I'm really glad to hear that it is as important as I thought it was!

I also really really like the idea about looking at student CVs to get an idea of productiveness and experiences gained in the program. It is a great way to get a snapshot of what one may be able to expect.

I personally don't plan on accepting any offer that I have to go into debt over. I'm only looking at programs that offer full tuition-waivers and decent stipends, as I am completely in agreeance about not wanting to take on (more) debt (and also about other ways to be fulfilled if, as you said, one just hasn't figured it out yet). All great things to keep in mind 🙂

This has been really helpful, and I sincerely appreciate it.
 
Hopeyhope said:
Thank you all SO much for the responses. I definitely agree that it can be difficult in this process to remember that it isn't just about getting in *anywhere*, but about getting in where we can truly thrive and be successful. Those are some great questions to ask to gauge the happiness of the department, and absolutely something to keep in mind. Honestly, initially I wasn't sure if I was putting too much weight on personality fit with mentor, so I'm really glad to hear that it is as important as I thought it was!

I also really really like the idea about looking at student CVs to get an idea of productiveness and experiences gained in the program. It is a great way to get a snapshot of what one may be able to expect.

I personally don't plan on accepting any offer that I have to go into debt over. I'm only looking at programs that offer full tuition-waivers and decent stipends, as I am completely in agreeance about not wanting to take on (more) debt (and also about other ways to be fulfilled if, as you said, one just hasn't figured it out yet). All great things to keep in mind 🙂

This has been really helpful, and I sincerely appreciate it.
Click to expand...

I would be cautious about being overly focused on only accepting offers and expecting that you'll get out of a program debt-free. Here's why:
1) The data shows that this is rare. The vast majority of graduates have some amount of debt.
2) I've watched applicants interview who have this mindset of "I'm only going to attend programs that are fully-funded." Sometimes this comes out in subtle (and overt) ways and the applicant comes across as entitled and/or short-sighted.
3) By short-sighted I mean, some applicants with this mindset appear more interested in financial aspects of the program and less concerned about the training and the associated opportunities.

I'm not advising that you take out 100-200k in student loans. What I am saying is that some amount of student loan debt may be worth it if it means you are attending the program and working with a mentor that offers you the best training and research opportunities, given your interests and career objectives. For those headed the academic route, I think it is essential to land yourself in a lab where you will be conducting research that you are passionate about. Even if you're planning to have a more balanced or clinical career, research is a big part of the training and it is a lot easier to conduct a thesis and dissertation that you are excited about, as opposed to one that you're simply doing to get it crossed off the list. All of that said, your well-being and productivity is likely to be impacted by financial hardship, so it is important to attend a program that is going to provide you with some financial support (e.g., partial/full tuition waivers, stipends, support for research/travel etc.). In the end, I'm just encouraging you guys who are going through the admissions process to keep things in perspective.
 
Well, I'm not sure I'd call 1/3 all that rare. Not a majority, but still a very common occurrence. And this goes beyond program funding to make it happen. It's also about money management and budgeting. Do you need that luxury apartment in the nicest part of town? Only if you want more debt. But yes, I agree that your training should be an important consideration. Luckily, fully funded programs tend to also be pretty solid trainers of scientist-practitioners.
 
Yeah, most people I know took out loans. Even if you can get through grad school debt free, there's still internship, when your stipend may not even cover the cost of living depending on the location.

As for what I'd consider, looking back:
- Internship match - not just rates but also where people commonly go for internship. Those program connections do seem to help.
- Practica opportunities - increasing, it seems like internships want prior experience in that setting. So, I'd consider that as much as possible. Additionally, do practica offer training with the types of populations you want to work with and the types of therapies/assessments that you want to learn? I would also look at how the program divvies out practica. For instance, are you going to have to do a crazy competitive application process? That isn't necessarily a drawback, but it's good to know ahead of time (IMO).
- Research - are there opportunities for not only authoring your own publications, but also collaborating with others? What is the research productivity of your mentor? What is the approach to mentorship? What are the expectations for thesis/dissertation?
 
Thanks for elaborating on the $$ issue Member1928 and WisNeuro. Just to clarify, when a program offers a full-tuition waiver and really solid stipend (and states funding guaranteed for x amount of years) with the caveat that students will need to pay, say, $1,000 in random fees per year, is there something else I am missing? This is the type of situation I am considering when I say fully-funded, but I totally acknowledge my ignorance in the matter, and I would appreciate any clarification if I am wrong.

Also, I appreciate your advice about money-matters and interviewing, Member1928. I haven't brought up the issue of stipend amount, funding, etc in interviews, and I don't really plan to change that. When I applied to programs I only applied to those that offered tuition waivers (the vast majority of them full) and stipends, and I figure if I get an offer then I will obviously need to learn more about the specifics and seriously consider whether the amount is feasible, etc. I've been very fortunate in that the offer I have received so far offers a full-tuition waiver with guaranteed funding for 6 years, and I've been nominated for a fellowship. Is this considered fully-funded? I do get your point, though, about considering the quality of training and experiences to be gained as well as funding when considering two offers. I will absolutely keep that in mind should the opportunity arise for me.

@smalltownpsych Thank you for mentioning practicum sites- I knew there was some big aspect that I was completely overlooking. Is there any objective way to look at the quality of these sites, or is it more a common sense type thing?
 
Cara susanna thank you for spelling some of that out! I hadn't thought to look at *where* students go for internship, just that they were going to APA sites. I also appreciate the elaboration on practicum. Are there any concrete advantages/disadvantages to on-site practicum opportunities vs. off-site?

These are all great tips/things to think about!! Thank you all for contributing to the discussion.
 
I will say that my experience on internship admissions committees points to an advantage of some off-site practicum placements. It's ok that the bulk of the training happen son site, but we definitely look for a wide variety of experiences in clinical training. if 100% of the clinical work happens on-site with the program faculty, that concerns us.
 
Thanks WisNeuro- I can see how it would be concerning if the entirety of a student's training is solely conducted by the same people in the same environment. I will keep that in mind, too.
 
Hopeyhope said:
Thanks for elaborating on the $$ issue Member1928 and WisNeuro. Just to clarify, when a program offers a full-tuition waiver and really solid stipend (and states funding guaranteed for x amount of years) with the caveat that students will need to pay, say, $1,000 in random fees per year, is there something else I am missing? This is the type of situation I am considering when I say fully-funded, but I totally acknowledge my ignorance in the matter, and I would appreciate any clarification if I am wrong.

Also, I appreciate your advice about money-matters and interviewing, Member1928. I haven't brought up the issue of stipend amount, funding, etc in interviews, and I don't really plan to change that. When I applied to programs I only applied to those that offered tuition waivers (the vast majority of them full) and stipends, and I figure if I get an offer then I will obviously need to learn more about the specifics and seriously consider whether the amount is feasible, etc. I've been very fortunate in that the offer I have received so far offers a full-tuition waiver with guaranteed funding for 6 years, and I've been nominated for a fellowship. Is this considered fully-funded? I do get your point, though, about considering the quality of training and experiences to be gained as well as funding when considering two offers. I will absolutely keep that in mind should the opportunity arise for me.

@smalltownpsych Thank you for mentioning practicum sites- I knew there was some big aspect that I was completely overlooking. Is there any objective way to look at the quality of these sites, or is it more a common sense type thing?
Click to expand...
Definitely sounds like a great funding package, congrats!
"Fully funded" is exactly what you stated. I had a stipend & full tuition remission but was responsible for about $1k in fees per semester. This is one of the things I was going to suggest finding out about, because I had equated "responsible for fees" as about the $300 or so I'd seen on my undergrad tuition bill. I was surprised when I received that first bill, but I should note that it was tied to credit hours so some semesters it was as low as ~$300.

I fully agree with your decision to seek out funded programs only, but with the caveat that for example my school states that funding is only GUARANTEED to first years, but in my experience every person for every semester was funded with a few rare exceptions (e.g., typically very advanced students, like 5th year or later for a summer semester or something) so I encourage you to keep an open mind and ask the grad students if you can.

As for other things I just had similar thoughts when I read your post and wanted to highlight mentor productivity. One thing I really wish I'd known is that my advisor is really selective in what he publishes. Basically, if it's not something he perceived to be a really big contribution, he didn't want to publish it and my vita suffered accordingly. Similarly, there was very little collaboration on papers across students within the lab. Other research labs had a policy where all students received authorship on almost all papers (even others' theses and dissertations). The rationale was that all grad students contributed to the design and collection of data as they had one huge data set they were continually adding to lab-wide-- those students who went on the academic market truly benefited from that approach.

The other thing that was already mentioned but I wanted to add my "+1" to is the availability of practicum/externship sites. You want to see a variety of sites in terms of assessment and treatment and if you have an idea of where you'd like to end up, a corresponding externship site, such as a VA or UCC can be invaluable.
 
Thanks for the info, aly cat! Mentor/lab productivity is something that I am really nervous about, I guess because it is one of the most concrete ways to sum up ones grad school experience and so important in pretty much every application process thereon out. Have you had a difficult time with practicum opportunities or internship (if you're there yet) because of less authorship?

Also, I'm not really sure if this is the right question to be asking or if it totally depends, but is there an average number of publications that a student should have, either by the time they apply to internship (e.g. 10 total) or a certain number completed each year in the program (e.g. 2 per year)? Does it differ significantly depending on the type of research conducted?

Thank you again- It can be really difficult to try and figure out some of this stuff through google alone!
 
Hopeyhope said:
Thanks for elaborating on the $$ issue Member1928 and WisNeuro. Just to clarify, when a program offers a full-tuition waiver and really solid stipend (and states funding guaranteed for x amount of years) with the caveat that students will need to pay, say, $1,000 in random fees per year, is there something else I am missing? This is the type of situation I am considering when I say fully-funded, but I totally acknowledge my ignorance in the matter, and I would appreciate any clarification if I am wrong.

Also, I appreciate your advice about money-matters and interviewing, Member1928. I haven't brought up the issue of stipend amount, funding, etc in interviews, and I don't really plan to change that. When I applied to programs I only applied to those that offered tuition waivers (the vast majority of them full) and stipends, and I figure if I get an offer then I will obviously need to learn more about the specifics and seriously consider whether the amount is feasible, etc. I've been very fortunate in that the offer I have received so far offers a full-tuition waiver with guaranteed funding for 6 years, and I've been nominated for a fellowship. Is this considered fully-funded? I do get your point, though, about considering the quality of training and experiences to be gained as well as funding when considering two offers. I will absolutely keep that in mind should the opportunity arise for me.

@smalltownpsych Thank you for mentioning practicum sites- I knew there was some big aspect that I was completely overlooking. Is there any objective way to look at the quality of these sites, or is it more a common sense type thing?
Click to expand...
There is no real objective way that I know of so would just use common sense. As Wisneuro was saying, variety of training is important. I think having solid inpatient experience is a plus, good neuropsych experience in a medical setting, VAs typically have great practicums. Also, my program had a lot of sites to choose from so that was a plus as I was able to tailor my experience. We also had a great reputation with the sites as providing good practicum students so we usually got first choice.
 
Hopeyhope said:
Thanks for elaborating on the $$ issue Member1928 and WisNeuro. Just to clarify, when a program offers a full-tuition waiver and really solid stipend (and states funding guaranteed for x amount of years) with the caveat that students will need to pay, say, $1,000 in random fees per year, is there something else I am missing? This is the type of situation I am considering when I say fully-funded, but I totally acknowledge my ignorance in the matter, and I would appreciate any clarification if I am wrong.

@smalltownpsych Thank you for mentioning practicum sites- I knew there was some big aspect that I was completely overlooking. Is there any objective way to look at the quality of these sites, or is it more a common sense type thing?
Click to expand...

I did bring up these issues, and maybe that's not a great thing, but it's stuff I feel is very important to know. I want to have an idea of how much debt I'll be incurring. This goes back to previous conversations here, but my stance is that money is a real part of this process. This is a huge financial commitment and I want to make sure I am fully informed before committing 5-7 years of my life and possibly 100's of thousands of dollars. I don't particularly care if it's a faux-pas or uncomfortable because it's a real thing. I wish I could decide solely on what would be the best in terms of research or whatever but that's not realistic, at least for me, because I'm not a millionaire 🙂

So, the way I'm calculating it is that on average, for the programs I applied to, tuition is waived (save, minor fees), and there's a stipend, roughly $22k on average. So let's assume rent is 1500K/month, on average (I applied to big cities), means that stipend will essentially just cover living expenses (housing and public transportation). So I plan to take out loans for everything else, probably 12K-20K/year. So I'm expecting, hopefully, 80K debt from this program. Which to me- is very scary, so that's why I'm trying to mentally (and financially) prepare for it.
 
WisNeuro said:
I wholeheartedly recommend a roommate if you are not living with a partner. Saves a ton of money, and can lead to some great times. I roomed with other grad students and had a blast. One former roomie is still one of my best friends.
Click to expand...

…preferably from other grad programs, not the one you will be in.
 
My boyfriend is finishing up his degree at the end of this semester, so I will (hopefully) be passing the baton of full time employment off to him as I transition out of my research position and back into graduate school. He's committed to moving with me for graduate school, and we've talked about splitting things as 50/50 as possible, since I will have a stipend, but I really do want to try and save as much as possible.

He'll be earning substantially more than I will (stipend vs. salary), so does that mean our quality of life will be based on what I can afford or what he can afford, and does that mean that we'll have to split things more like 75/25 rather than 50/50? I haven't even been admitted to a program yet, and he and I are already discussing the logistics of internship year - Is geography so important that I should focus on more general placements in the city I'm already in, or focus on fit and apply all across the country? Would we move together? Would we do long distance for a year? Does it all depend on what city we move to this fall? Having a partner to lean on throughout this process has been invaluable in maintaining my sanity (in my experience at least), but it does add several additional layers of complexity to the decision making process.

Way back in undergrad the full funding offered by PhD programs was one of the major reasons why I decided to go pre-psych rather than premed. If I were't moving with my boyfriend, then I would definitely consider living with roommates, and I would have been much more conservative with the cost of living and potential support offered by family and friends in cities I applied to (looking at you Fordham & Columbia). My boyfriend and I have been together for years, so it's hard to objectively say how applying to grad school would be different if I were single, but it would be interesting to have data on the differences between single applicants and partnered applicants (e.g. significance of funding in decision making, location/flexibility, clinical science vs. balanced programs, average age, average GPA/GRE, etc.)
 
Last edited:
You may want to consider the program's process for matching students with practicums. I interviewed at a research-heavy program that did nothing to help students find practicums (instead, the program expected students to initiate and find community agencies willing to accept them as a practicum student). That was a big turn-off for me, especially compared to other sites where the program faculty facilitated a structured practicum match process by giving guidance on which sites offer which experiences, vetting practicums to ensure quality supervision, helping students set up practicum interviews, etc. Focusing on a career in research/academia shouldn't mean you have to settle for a program that isn't invested in your clinical development.

I also agree re: mix of on-site and off-site practicum. Inpatient experience, in particular, is great for your clinical development and makes you marketable to internships. It's surprising how many people in our field don't get experience in grad school working with clients with severe and persistent mental illness. Strong assessment training also opens doors when you apply to internship. RE: your question about authorship vs. ability to get practicum/internship: I don't think my publication productivity bore any weight on my competitiveness for practicum sites. It may mean more in the internship process, esp if sites have a relatively stronger research focus.

It's also worth considering whether the city/town of the program is conducive to your personal interests and goals. Don't underestimate the importance of work/life balance. I was single when I started grad school and knew I wouldn't know anyone in the cities in which I applied, so during/after interviews I thought hard about whether a town could offer me opportunities to meet other people my age. You will probably bond with peers in your cohort... but trust me, you will also want friends and activities outside of the program, too! 🙂
 
Hopeyhope said:
Thanks for the info, aly cat! Mentor/lab productivity is something that I am really nervous about, I guess because it is one of the most concrete ways to sum up ones grad school experience and so important in pretty much every application process thereon out. Have you had a difficult time with practicum opportunities or internship (if you're there yet) because of less authorship?

Also, I'm not really sure if this is the right question to be asking or if it totally depends, but is there an average number of publications that a student should have, either by the time they apply to internship (e.g. 10 total) or a certain number completed each year in the program (e.g. 2 per year)? Does it differ significantly depending on the type of research conducted?

Thank you again- It can be really difficult to try and figure out some of this stuff through google alone!
Click to expand...
Definitely not for practicum. My program has relationships in the community who expect to have students from our program each year. We did nothing more than submit our preferences to the faculty member coordinating that year.

With internship, it is hard to say. I didn't match last year, but this year I have done quite well at this stage as I have more than quadrupled the number of interviews I had last year. I had one publication that went from "under review" to "published" and I really do not think that was a factor that made all that much difference. The only caveat to that is that my program has a good record of placing people at scientist-practitioner to clinical scientist sites, and I applied to 3-4 sites last year that my program had a strong history with, but in hindsight, I likely did not have the publication record to be competitive for. The majority of my interviews this year were still at scientist-practitioner sites, but most of them are not the super research heavy ones, either.

I don't have an answer about your pubs per year or total to shoot for, it varies so much dependent upon many different factors. That said, I can think of only a few people who averaged 2+/year... everyone else who left with 1-2 first authors and perhaps a couple of other co-authoreds seemed to do just fine (with regard to internship, that is-- career goals varied and obviously that needs to be taken into account too).
 
I really appreciate all of the information on things to consider re practicum, hopeful8 and aly cat. I definitely wasn't aware of many of the important things to look for, let alone taking into account *how* students are placed at sites. Thanks, all!

I'm glad to hear you are doing so well in the internship process this year, aly cat! It sounds like you figured out how to sell your strengths and found sites that may be more appreciative of your particular experiences. Good luck in the rest of the process!

Briarcliff, I too am going through this process with a partner; I completely agree that it is awesome to have, though complicated. I think the biggest thing I'm worried about right now is finding a job for my spouse; luckily he has pretty marketable skills that are typically universally needed (he does HVAC and maintenance work), so hopefully it isn't too difficult for him to find work. Another issue is that his family is struggling with the idea of us moving, and I think would rather we stay and I become a baby-factory instead. Although he is great with boundaries and understanding that what is best for the two of us as a family is priority, I know he has some guilt about leaving them. :shrug: Southern boys and their mamas, I tell ya....

I fly out to Purdue tomorrow- Can't wait to ask some awesome questions thanks to the help of everyone in this thread!
 
Ollie123 said:
I would say it is extremely important to be able to not just co-author, but first-author multiple manuscripts during graduate school.
Click to expand...

At some schools, for tenure, a pub you're on that is first-authored by a student of your counts the same as your own first authorship. This drastically reduces this need to be first on everything coming out of the lab, as the PI. I'd appreciate an applicant asking directly about that if they were curious.
 
I think your mentor makes your grad school experience. IMHO that's the #1 thing to consider. Then, as others have said, clinical and research opportunities.
 
Ollie123 said:
I think the lack of responses is due to the question being extremely vague and difficult to answer.

I would say it is extremely important to be able to not just co-author, but first-author multiple manuscripts during graduate school. I would not even consider attending a school where that isn't possible. If one's goals are purely clinical I would worry about this slightly less. However, I would worry significantly about the training at any school where its not even an option. Any decent program should at least be able to provide this as a possibility. Most schools have you do both a thesis and a dissertation (though there are exceptions)...if students can't publish them or there isn't an expectation that they be done well enough to be publishable (regardless of whether or not students actually follow through and do so)...that's a sign of pretty shoddy training.

It matters a great deal if your POIs interests are similar to your own if you want a career in research. Again, less so if that isn't the case...but you still probably want them to be similar just for your own happiness.
Click to expand...
I don't think most of this is accurate at all. This forum does a horrible job of making what you said sound like its normal and expected in graduate school. It isn't. It is in some schools but that is NOT the majority.

1. being a first author on multiple publications is great, but it's not expected. There are tons of people who make very stellar careers based off of being only a co-author. Looking at the APPIC numbers this is reflective. The top 95% percentile of applicats in research had 5 publications... no mention of authorship. Focusing on first authorship is not needed when MOST people have zero. I watched job applicants come in from several psychology programs this year at my school and a majority of those folks (final job ranks) had only co-authored publications making the case, again, that your focus on authorship order is misplaced. That all said, I see your argument from the stance that a good dis/thesis should be able to be submitted- but how would an applicant put that together to consider? I would argue that is a semantically pleasing thing but entirely pointless. Besides, its easier to publish other stuff with less hoops than it is to focus on publications from thesis / dissertation. Even just from a timing standpoint as you try to juggle committees and all the other red tape of grad school. This all couples nicely with the point MC made above about tenure credit and authorship order.

2. Taking a position that your thesis should publish is foolish imho and stinks of the extremist arguments of McFall (1996). People shouldn't expect to publish it if they are the one really pushing the research line. Maybe they do, that's great- but the goal of the thesis is to develop skills needed for research. It is not to demonstrate that you already have them. Again, the modal number of publications is zero. That all aside, I am yet to ever hear a single argument that clinical training is somehow shoddy because a thesis doesn't present as publishable. That's a stretch.

3. The greatest thing in the world isn't a place where the POI has interests that align but where the POI supports your interest as they converge somewhat. I've seen, too many times, as professors overtake their students to push an agenda. Having a supportive POI/faculty mentor is the way more important factor. As people apply for graduate school the chances are that they don't really know their interests nearly as much as they think they do. If you are supported, everything will be easier to chase down because it will be your passion making it happen. You will work harder and enjoy it more, etc.

I say this as a guy who habitually publishes 2x a year as a first author over the course of my doctoral degree in good journals while attending a a highly competitive R1 school. Last year I presented 15 national posters in addition to the submission of six manuscripts- half as first author. So when I say research is being over-emphasized in your post as a requisite for CONSIDERING a school, I hope you understand the perspective I come from.

Hopeyhope said:
are there other things that new candidates may not be aware of at this stage that you been there, done thats may be able to share?
Click to expand...
I would say that the biggest factor for me was related to finding a lifestyle. I feel like the emphasis placed on training supplanting every aspect of your life is a bit foolish. Being happy for 4,5, or 6 years is the best thing in the world. It makes the rest of the work breeze by. It is more than just POI, opportunities, etc- it's a question of "can I enjoy my life doing what I love for the next few years here". Thats the only question honestly.

See my point above about research. Consider that.
 
I think you took some of that out of context. First, I already noted that if your career goals are purely clinical...some of the things I mentioned matter less. Its not the norm to have lots of publications....or even a couple publications. But given the increasing number of folks we are pumping out of professional schools (oddly enough...also about 50%) that barely even have libraries and will have a fair number of doors closed to them for their careers, the grand averages are not terribly informative here. Having worked with a wide array of different psychologists from this point...I can honestly I'm not terribly impressed by what the "norm" is in this field and given the multitude of other factors (competitive job market, variance in salaries) I'm not going to aim for middle-of-the-road. That's not to say its impossible to succeed from a program where everyone isn't putting out 5 pubs a year. It is entirely possible. If one program was and one program wasn't, is that worth considering when making your decision? I think it would be absolutely insane not to do so, though obviously that should be done alongside other factors - both professional and personal.

I did not say your thesis should publish. I argued it should be publishable. Whether it is worth publishing and where it could ultimately get in is largely dependent on the results - which may or may not pan out given that's the nature of science. I agree its about developing skills. When I see a god-awful master's thesis that wouldn't be accepted into a departmental newsletter, that tells me this persons mentor doesn't give two craps about them or their education. I legitimately wonder what they learned (if anything). I firmly believe that integration of science and practice is the direction we're moving and it is where many of the better-paid jobs in the field are right now. That's tough to do if you suck at science. So yeah...I'm quite comfortable saying that if a program has students producing terrible theses and passing them anyways, its a program I would avoid. Even if I was interested in a more applied career. I'd also avoid a program so research-focused that students with abhorrent clinical skills were shuffled along. Neither is acceptable.

As an aside - its not hard to figure out the general caliber of theses/dissertations if you have library access. Many universities upload them to Proquest or similar services. I pulled some from recent grads when I was interviewing for programs (Note: this is also a great way to figure out how "flexible" mentors are and whether students are allowed to develop their own projects). I obviously wasn't nearly as good at evaluating them as I am now so I'm sure some of the subtlety was lost, but its easy to spot big differences. If there is mention of ravens...run away as fast as possible.

I pretty much agree with the rest. Frankly, I thought happiness was too obvious a factor to even warrant mention. Having a supportive mentor is important. Do your interests need to align perfectly? Not if they are supportive. If your goal is to be at an AMC studying cognitive factors in geriatic depression should you work with someone studying behavioral interventions for children with conduct disorder just because that person is super-supportive? They likely won't have relevant data that you can use for publishing other things, won't know the research in the area well enough to provide much assistance and won't know the players in that area to help you form necessary connections. Does it guarantee a life of sadness and failure if you do end up in that position? Of course not. Would I avoid it if I could? Absolutely. Would I give up everything else in life to avoid it? Of course not, but we're rarely dealing with such extremes. So yeah...take research match into consideration. Take happiness into consideration too.
 
Ollie123 said:
*snip cause brevity is beautiful*
Click to expand...
I probably did take some of it out of context. That isn't because of what you said but more because of the way in which this forum promotes certain levels and behaviors as normal when they are not. My intention in responding to you was to beat on the pattern I see here more than anything else.

There is a difference between a "terrible thesis" and one that won't publish. Totally different. I have seen a lot of them that are good design and methodology wise, but won't publish because of the learning curve with the best types of thesis ( no special populations, etc). There are a ton of lessons you can learn from a crappy thesis- or even a thesis that merely lacks effective sampling procedures or power for analyses. There are tons of crappy programs out there- you mentioned psyd as an example. I entirely excluded that from my thinking pattern when talking research and was discussing only PhD for the reasons you mentioned.

I think that, by in large, when you move beyond a certain very low tier quality of school it is less about 'will the school make me good' and more about 'do i have the go-get'um to use the resources available to make myself good'.What I have found is that the thing that enabled me to research is that my faculty has always helped me. They are all fellows and accomplished, but they aren't specialized where I am. There is some conceptual overlap (so it isn't me studying BPD with them while I am interested in intelligence), but not a ton at a specificity level. This hasn't slowed me down at all. I also don't think that having people hand you data and tell you what to do really develops you holistically. It teaches you to take a single perspective and I find that a weak training method. Perhaps that's my view- I generally find the field of psychology is fast approaching the point where soon we will know everything there is to know about nothing because of the degree of niche encouraged.

Either way, was just glancing through final post-doc applicants for a different R1 school with a VERY good republication that is entirely focused on their million dollar grants and would be a typical description of top tier academic positions. Their publication numbers were NEVER more than 5 and averaged at 3. 50% of the applicants had ZERO first authorships and one had only one publication on which they even had their name. As I said before about the APPI application numbers, I say again for post-doc academic positions. This forum over-inflates the degree of expectation- particularly about first authorship expectations.

Agreed happiness shouldn't need mentioning, this forum just does a horrible job of reminding people because people get so caught up in the numbers of trying to look competitive. As I said at the beginning, this forum is absolutely horrible for anxiety. Applicants, looking back, should be entirely aware of it and what the culture it fosters is.
 
Justanothergrad said:
There is a difference between a "terrible thesis" and one that won't publish. Totally different. I have seen a lot of them that are good design and methodology wise, but won't publish because of the learning curve with the best types of thesis ( no special populations, etc). There are a ton of lessons you can learn from a crappy thesis- or even a thesis that merely lacks effective sampling procedures or power for analyses. There are tons of crappy programs out there- you mentioned psyd as an example. I entirely excluded that from my thinking pattern when talking research and was discussing only PhD for the reasons you mentioned.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but only because for something to not be publishable in ANY legitimate outlet, it really needs to be beyond terrible. Plenty of stuff may not be worth writing up due to the issues you mentioned. A methodologically sound study in a ugrad sample with limited power probably isn't getting into Abnormal/JCCP/Psych Science/etc (though actually with enough shine and significant results...it might!). More likely than not, it is absolutely publishable somewhere. Just pick up a typical low-mid tier journal. Its not hard to publish something if you will settle for anywhere (not that I'm advocating actually doing that). I'm not saying every thesis needs to get into Science or Nature and be covered by the NY Times. I do maintain that if it wouldn't pass muster with even the lowest bar of peer-review in the field...the mentors are doing something terribly wrong.

I'm also not a fan of just being handed data (and certainly not being told every step of what to do along the way, which I didn't mention). We were expected to run our own lab-based experimental studies for our thesis/dissertations. I just brought it up because I assumed that is what you were advocating for in terms of things with "fewer barriers to publication" of which existing data is probably the most obvious one. I think its helpful to have access to it, but I'd be the first to argue that appropriate research training cannot include solely archival work.
 
Ollie123 said:
*snip*.
Click to expand...
You assume that quality means publication. That isn't true. Besides that, there are tons of great designs and great projects that run into road blocks. I've seen tons, literally TONS, of projects that have problems with substantial numbers of participants because of inclusion/exclusion criteria and special population concerns. There are tons of good projects faculty projects that get the file drawer. There are even more theses that never even move towards it because of unintended side effects as a result of being a developing researcher.

My last publication submission just got a rejection. The reviewers for it were arguing methodologically inappropriate things that are not only not standard for the field, but are entirely against convention and theory. Any argument that publication is based on quality as a sole provider is entirely misleading. How many times have you published as a first author on a project of your own design from ground up? I only ask because I don't see a lot of folks who publish regularly that don't openly acknowledge there is a filter where good research may not see the light of day.

Either way, perhaps we just disagree. I do think my perspective is an important one for applicants to consider because there is pressure that is meaningless and pointless. There is a lot of focus on numbers that we don't know mean anything. I think we need to make and encourage reasonable expectations that are in line with what people typically do here. Even wanting a faculty position, expecting multiple first author publications is not a common thing coming out of a doc. period. at all.
 
Last edited:
I think you are wildly misconstruing what I am saying. Lots of stuff hits road blocks. Lots of great work doesn't get published. This is true. This is most often because most people are not going to bother sending their work to a relatively obscure journal that isn't indexed by most databases and has a 0.7 impact factor. Particularly not when they have other things they could be working on. I frankly don't see anyone who publishes regularly who'd argue its "hard" to get something published if you have absolutely no standards about where it goes. Part of the filedrawer problem is rejections, but a big part is also promotion & tenure committees relying on shortcuts (i.e. impact factors vs. actual evaluation of quality of work) that removes any incentive to publish failed experiments. Again, I'm not saying everything needs to be in nothing but the best journals or even actually be published anywhere. However, if someone is producing a product that from the start would have precisely zero potential to be published anywhere....yeah, that's a sign of poor quality. Are there exceptions where something that should be in the literature doesn't make it there? Sure. Really though, we've spiraled completed off topic. My original point was just that if one is looking into programs, whether students are producing substantive theses/dissertations and not just junk that allows them to check off a box as having done something vaguely scholarly before getting shuffled along is something to consider. Do you disagree?

If you think getting a paper rejected means something isn't publishable, I think you are being overly sensitive and that is where our disagreement likely comes from😉 I say never getting papers rejected sometimes is a sign you aren't aiming high enough with your outlets! I get stuff rejected all the damn time, as does everyone else I have worked with. Send it to another journal, like we all do. There is a good chance it will get in somewhere and even if it doesn't it is most likely because you decided it wasn't worth it to keep going in light of other things to work on...not because it is actually unpublishable.

For the record - 3 first authors where I was the driving force behind all of it, 1 first author I did everything for but was from archival data (so I didn't design it), few more first authors in varying stages of review/development and about a dozen other papers I contributed to in various degrees in various ways. Currently 16 publications total. Not a big proponent of counting pubs for reasons I hint at above and because I fail to see how it proves anything...but there you go.
 
Last edited:
Fair, just as I ignored PsyDs earlier I don't consider unindexed journals with non-existent impacts even worth considering. At that point, it is chasing numbers to brag about but those numbers seem unlikely to demonstrate that you are able to effective publish if you are attempting to track down a research heavy job. Jim publishes 12 articles in JoeBlow Quarterly as first author. Bob publishes 1 as second author in psych science. I bet Bob is better. I don't really think that the quality of the thesis/dissertation is nearly as important as you do to training. Short of a complete junk school, producing a standard, mid-tier quality thesis is going to happen. Will it publish (as defined by an actual useful to the career publication)? Probably not.

Agreed entirely on counting pubs. I think we are approaching our arguments from two sides of the same coins. Quality is good. Research is important- I'm an advocate of scientist-practitioner models. I'm not sure that McFall's arguments on what that looks like is effective, and I'm not sure that our focus on "getting them" is the most important thing. If you want to be a researcher, I don't see the thesis as the most important thing. Nor do I see endlessly pushing irrelevant journals as valuable to that goal in any way either. If you want to be a clinician, it doesn't matter at all- as you said.
 
Justanothergrad said:
Fair, just as I ignored PsyDs earlier I don't consider unindexed journals with non-existent impacts even worth considering. At that point, it is chasing numbers to brag about but those numbers seem unlikely to demonstrate that you are able to effective publish if you are attempting to track down a research heavy job. Jim publishes 12 articles in JoeBlow Quarterly as first author. Bob publishes 1 as second author in psych science. I bet Bob is better. I don't really think that the quality of the thesis/dissertation is nearly as important as you do to training. Short of a complete junk school, producing a standard, mid-tier quality thesis is going to happen. Will it publish (as defined by an actual useful to the career publication)? Probably not.

Agreed entirely on counting pubs. I think we are approaching our arguments from two sides of the same coins. Quality is good. Research is important- I'm an advocate of scientist-practitioner models. I'm not sure that McFall's arguments on what that looks like is effective, and I'm not sure that our focus on "getting them" is the most important thing. If you want to be a researcher, I don't see the thesis as the most important thing. Nor do I see endlessly pushing irrelevant journals as valuable to that goal in any way either. If you want to be a clinician, it doesn't matter at all- as you said.
Click to expand...

I think there's a balance between quality and quantity when it comes to publications, honestly. Should you publish everything you can think of in low tier journals just to publish stuff? No, of course not. Should you never first author anything and just latch on a sixth author to everything? No. But on the flipside, publishing only one paper every three years isn't that great of an idea, either, even if it's one JCP/Abnormal/Psych Science paper. There's something to be said for being able to produce work that is not only good *and* consistent. I've seen people with one really good publication out of grad school flame out afterwards when they were unable to reproduce their success. I've published in a range of journals and in a range of authorship positions. I'm obviously most proud of the higher author, higher IF publications. but some of what I've published in more mid-range journals has been well-received/well-cited, too, so I don't begrudge those publications. FWIW, even my highly successful (e.g., multiple R1s, full professor, etc., etc) mentors seem to publish in a range of journals--with a definite tilt towards higher end journals, of course, but still a range.
 
futureapppsy2 said:
I think there's a balance between quality and quantity when it comes to publications, honestly. Should you publish everything you can think of in low tier journals just to publish stuff? No, of course not. Should you never first author anything and just latch on a sixth author to everything? No. But on the flipside, publishing only one paper every three years isn't that great of an idea, either, even if it's one JCP/Abnormal/Psych Science paper. There's something to be said for being able to produce work that is not only good *and* consistent. I've seen people with one really good publication out of grad school flame out afterwards when they were unable to reproduce their success. I've published in a range of journals and in a range of authorship positions. I'm obviously most proud of the higher author, higher IF publications. but some of what I've published in more mid-range journals has been well-received/well-cited, too, so I don't begrudge those publications. FWIW, even my highly successful (e.g., multiple R1s, full professor, etc., etc) mentors seem to publish in a range of journals--with a definite tilt towards higher end journals, of course, but still a range.
Click to expand...

I feel like some of the things said here (by which I mean SDN) are pretty unrealistic, honestly; not that I wouldn't ideally love to publish everything I do in JCCP, but I would say "mid tier" publications are the norm in academia; my advisor (tenured, R1 institution) has a few papers in upper-mid journals, and then the vast majority in middling places with IF's in the 1-2 range. A lot of the people I have worked with in my subfield have some of their most cited papers in small unheard of journals. Part of the problem with the mindset that the best work is published in the biggest journals, is that there are political decisions on the type of work that does/does not get published in many of those places which has little to do with the quality of the work and instead a great deal to do with methodology and research subfield.
 
QAsPsych said:
I feel like some of the things said here (by which I mean SDN) are pretty unrealistic, honestly; not that I wouldn't ideally love to publish everything I do in JCCP, but I would say "mid tier" publications are the norm in academia; my advisor (tenured, R1 institution) has a few papers in upper-mid journals, and then the vast majority in middling places with IF's in the 1-2 range. A lot of the people I have worked with in my subfield have some of their most cited papers in small unheard of journals. Part of the problem with the mindset that the best work is published in the biggest journals, is that there are political decisions on the type of work that does/does not get published in many of those places which has little to do with the quality of the work and instead a great deal to do with methodology and research subfield.
Click to expand...

I think this is a really good point. SDN can definitely tend the really high end of publication expectations, and it can be easy to forget that. I've seen plenty of people get faculty positions with 3-4 publications in mid-range journals, so having five first authors in Abnormal or JCCP, while it would be awesome, is not the minimum criteria for consideration. I also think it's important to note that there can be other considerations for publishing specific pieces. For example. I published my undergrad thesis--basically, a small pilot study--in a fairly obscure journal (still peer-reviewed and not pay-to-publish or anything, but not that well-indexed) because I wanted to be able to cite some of the psychometric data from it in other manuscripts. Will it go on my biosketch? No, but it has its purposes.
 
It's all relative, and definitely depends on the strength and scope of the training program. At the places I was part of the committee deciding on intern and postdoc slots for neuropsych, if you didn't have any pubs, you wouldn't have been considered. Of course, those sites wanted interns and postdocs involved in research. Even strong clinical sites that my colleagues are at require pubs. Can you get get an internship/postdoc without pubs, sure. Are you competitive for the top training sites without one, not really.
 
I appreciate all of this conversation about pubs; it is helpful to get to see some of the thought process that goes behind certain arguments, and it gives a better picture of *why* certain statements are made.
Justanothergrad said:
I think that, by in large, when you move beyond a certain very low tier quality of school it is less about 'will the school make me good' and more about 'do i have the go-get'um to use the resources available to make myself good'.
Click to expand...

^^I find the above statement to be incredibly comforting. Seriously, it brings a lot of peace.
 
QAsPsych said:
I feel like some of the things said here (by which I mean SDN) are pretty unrealistic, honestly; not that I wouldn't ideally love to publish everything I do in JCCP, but I would say "mid tier" publications are the norm in academia; my advisor (tenured, R1 institution) has a few papers in upper-mid journals, and then the vast majority in middling places with IF's in the 1-2 range. A lot of the people I have worked with in my subfield have some of their most cited papers in small unheard of journals. Part of the problem with the mindset that the best work is published in the biggest journals, is that there are political decisions on the type of work that does/does not get published in many of those places which has little to do with the quality of the work and instead a great deal to do with methodology and research subfield.
Click to expand...
Agreed entirely and that was what my point was. It wouldn't hurt us, as a forum and as a large discipline, to relax our perfectionist and competitive tendencies in order to get a better grip on the reality of what publication ACTUALLY looks like in the real world (both PhD application cycles and academic applications).

Cheers to all. Good conversation.
 
Justanothergrad said:
Agreed entirely and that was what my point was. It wouldn't hurt us, as a forum and as a large discipline, to relax our perfectionist and competitive tendencies in order to get a better grip on the reality of what publication ACTUALLY looks like in the real world (both PhD application cycles and academic applications).

Cheers to all. Good conversation.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I don't think either of the scenarios you've presented in your post (i.e., 15 fourth-author publications in JoeBlow Quarterly or 1 or 2 pubs in JCCP/Psych Science/Abnormal) are at all "reality" for a vast majority of grad students. Pretty much no one (in fact, I'm tempted to say no one, but outliers and all) publishes exclusively in extremely high end journals and almost no one is going to start off with a first author in high end journal. Similarly, people who are interested in research aren't going to just keep lobbing articles at the lowest hanging fruit they can find, unless they have zero mentorship or desire to seek out knowledge. My guess is that the reality of publication for most research-oriented PhD psych grad students looks like a first author or two in a solid but not exceptional journal and 2-3 non-first author pubs in the same type of journal. Maybe 1 or 2 from either of these areas is in a really good journal or maybe they have this plus a couple in lower tier journals, but very few people are going to have double digit publications and/or extremely high IF first authorships in grad school.
 
futureapppsy2 said:
To be fair, I don't think either of the scenarios you've presented in your post (i.e., 15 fourth-author publications in JoeBlow Quarterly or 1 or 2 pubs in JCCP/Psych Science/Abnormal) are at all "reality" for a vast majority of grad students. Pretty much no one (in fact, I'm tempted to say no one, but outliers and all) publishes exclusively in extremely high end journals and almost no one is going to start off with a first author in high end journal. Similarly, people who are interested in research aren't going to just keep lobbing articles at the lowest hanging fruit they can find, unless they have zero mentorship or desire to seek out knowledge. My guess is that the reality of publication for most research-oriented PhD psych grad students looks like a first author or two in a solid but not exceptional journal and 2-3 non-first author pubs in the same type of journal. Maybe 1 or 2 from either of these areas is in a really good journal or maybe they have this plus a couple in lower tier journals, but very few people are going to have double digit publications and/or extremely high IF first authorships in grad school.
Click to expand...
Agreed entirely. It is unreasonable and unrealistic. It was intended to highlight the issues with how we conceptualize publication importance. My purpose in this thread was to try and lower the general perception of publication standards that get put forth on this forum all too often. We chase numbers and don't have a good way to do more than try to blindly infer competence from that. That was my effort- No more and no less.
 
Justanothergrad said:
Agreed entirely. It is unreasonable and unrealistic. It was intended to highlight the issues with how we conceptualize publication importance. My purpose in this thread was to try and lower the general perception of publication standards that get put forth on this forum all too often. We chase numbers and don't have a good way to do more than try to blindly infer competence from that. That was my effort- No more and no less.
Click to expand...
And when we train clinical psychologists to chase these numbers in the academic world, maybe that's the wrong numbers to chase. i would rather increase my pay than my prestige and so would my family since they aren't that impressed with me anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DynamicDidactic
What to consider when thinking about going to PP?
Replies
12
Views
1K
summerbabe
summerbabe
H
PhD/PsyD From Psychotherapy to Assessment/Testing
Replies
28
Views
2K
PsyDr
PsyDr
N
When to consider MA before PhD?
Replies
1
Views
785
summerbabe
summerbabe
P
One of those things we fear
Replies
21
Views
2K
The Cinnabon
The Cinnabon
fy6190
non-practicing MD wanting to make transition to PsyD/PhD, or a Master's
Replies
31
Views
4K
singasongofjoy
singasongofjoy
Top