Bu?

[wdd]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Has anyone here applied to/attending BU? I'm looking at their requirements for the MA and Clinical PhD programs, and I'm wondering if I'd be better served applying for the PhD program directly. (I'm mostly looking at terminal MA/MS programs so I can improve my chances of getting into a PhD program afterwards.)

The reason I ask is, it appears that BU's requirements for the PhD are (relatively speaking!!) a little lax--no Psych GRE, decent acceptance rates (<10%, but that still sounds better than most), decent funding, and average General GRE scores far enough below mine. I don't doubt it's a rigorous program, but I've seen so many other programs that expect much higher GRE scores, the subject test, 60+ years of volunteer clinical service, and an oil portrait of your favorite historical psychologist. The BU program seems almost too good to be true in that respect.

Am I right, here, or do I need to seriously brush up on my reading comprehension skills? I would love to just go into one program, get my Master's on the way, in a cool city where my wife should be able to find a job, and have a good deal of clinical experience in a school that seems to value CBT and a dash of Neuro ... can I have it all, or am I just so tired from researching schools that I'm going batty? 😀

 

[wdd]

Okay, looking at the full disclosure data, I'm a little eased--it's not as rosy as I thought (that's good; I'd hate to get all worked up for nothing).

So then my real question is, who's in the Clinical Program? MA or PhD? What do you think?

 

[PsychED00]

I have my M.A. in General Psych from BU and have applied there twice since for the Ph.D. program.... NO LUCK.. I had a 3.89 in their M.A. program...

Insider's scoop says they pretty much no who they are accepting WELL before the actual applications are sent in (via networking, colleague recommendations...etc!!!) Appx. 600 applicants last year for about 8 slots!!!

In other words, unless your Dad is a professor there, or your best friends dad, count it out!!!!!

 

[wdd]

Yikes! Thanks, PsychED00 ... I definitely posted my question too soon--I hadn't yet seen the 8/600 acceptance figures (only the "<10%" figure, which sounded promising). Definitely getting antsy about where I'm going to apply! Well, we'll see if I even get into the Master's program ...

I have my M.A. in General Psych from BU and have applied there twice since for the Ph.D. program.... NO LUCK.. I had a 3.89 in their M.A. program...

Insider's scoop says they pretty much no who they are accepting WELL before the actual applications are sent in (via networking, colleague recommendations...etc!!!) Appx. 600 applicants last year for about 8 slots!!!

In other words, unless your Dad is a professor there, or your best friends dad, count it out!!!!!

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Also, I don't subscribe to the idea that a previous MA helps your chances in the admission process.

 

[wdd]

I know there's some debate over that, and some even suggest it hurts the process, but when you're 5 years out of school (and that's grad school, in English, no less) and a Psych minor, with no stats classes or clinical experience under your belt, it seems like a good general MA or MS program is the only way to get in the door at a good PhD program.

Maybe I could get into a third-tier school, and I hear a lot of talk about the school not mattering as much as the internships/networking, but for my geographical, among other, needs, only a few major cities--ones with top- or near-top-tier schools, fit the bill.

Also, I don't subscribe to the idea that a previous MA helps your chances in the admission process.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Some (many) of those responsible for accepting applicants have this idea that the applicant needs to be "trainable." Translation=don't know anything. I think that is why the prevoius MA is a wash, in my opinion.

I had a 2 year old Master's in counseling when I applied, and most of the people I talked to during the process were not impressed.

 

[Anon15]

Insider's scoop says they pretty much no who they are accepting WELL before the actual applications are sent in (via networking, colleague recommendations...etc!!!) Appx. 600 applicants last year for about 8 slots!!!

Agreed. If you want to get into BU you NEED a connection.

 

[KillerDiller]

Some (many) of those responsible for accepting applicants have this idea that the applicant needs to be "trainable." Translation=don't know anything. I think that is why the prevoius MA is a wash, in my opinion.

I had a 2 year old Master's in counseling when I applied, and most of the people I talked to during the process were not impressed.

An MS may be a good option in the OP's case then. It's a degree that provides plenty of background coursework and research experience without providing a specific training model for clinical work.

Sorry about your experience with an MA in counseling, that seems really unfair.

 

[Jon4PsyD]

Well this was an interesting post to me because BU is supposedly (numbers wise), the most difficult program in the country to get into (I heard they only took ONE person for the Fall '07!)

I'm kind of in a unique consortium program at BU (Involved the Schools of Ed, Psych, and Medical) so my Master's is not the General MA. I'll come out with an LMHC and then apply for my doctorate. Honestly, the General MA is a great program and it gets you out quickly, it's only an 8 course, 1 year program.

Good Luck and private message me if you want more information on BU!🙂

Jon

 

[wdd]

Crazy, I swear my reading skills are better than how I interpreted their site would lead you all to believe! I'm glad to hear some real-world advice. Thanks, folks.

Well this was an interesting post to me because BU is supposedly (numbers wise), the most difficult program in the country to get into (I heard they only took ONE person for the Fall '07!)

 

[terrybug]

Since when are PhD programs tiered? As far as I know, the law school model doesn't apply to research-based programs.

Maybe I could get into a third-tier school, and I hear a lot of talk about the school not mattering as much as the internships/networking, but for my geographical, among other, needs, only a few major cities--ones with top- or near-top-tier schools, fit the bill.

 

[wdd]

terrybug Since when are PhD programs tiered? As far as I know, the law school model doesn't apply to research-based programs.

I didn't mean it literally. Clearly some schools have better reps than others, are ranked by US News better than others, etc. Maybe I should have said, "Top Ten?"

 

[Ollie123]

As far as I know, there is no formal tiering or even ranking, but there is definitely a sort of loose clumping of schools based on research productivity, grant funding, etc. Usually they refer to it by tiers, probably just out of convention. I've heard all kinds of professors and people in the field do it too, so its not just an SDN thing🙂

Mostly it relates to what schools have millions (for some, 10s of millions) from NIH alone, compared to schools that have a couple grants, if that.

 

[Anon15]

(I heard they only took ONE person for the Fall '07!)

This is incorrect.

BU "average" class size is between 6-8.

 

[yikes]

out of curiosity what are the top 10 clinical programs? my guess is that it includes, sdsu/ucsd joint program, uw - seattle and ucla.

 

[wdd]

This is the best list I could find:

http://www.socialpsychology.org/clinrank.htm

But as you can see, they're ranked by the number of publications and citations, not by the level of clinical practitioner they put out.

I'm very new to this, as anyone here can tell, and I'm beginning to see how difficult it is to trust lists like this to tell you what schools are the "best," since the so-called best schools might not be the best for your goals.

<rampant speculation>
Sure, UPenn is an amazing school overall, and who wouldn't want that name (or Yale, or Harvard) on the piece of paper on your office wall? But if you want a more balanced program, you're not going to get anything out of the schools that clearly define their department as one that turns out lecturers and researchers?

Same goes for Rutgers PsyD. Again, great name to have on the wall, but if you love rats and electrodes, it isn't "the best." It's "the wrong one." At least that's what I'm gathering.

</rampant speculation>

I guess this is where the Insider's Guide (which I have on order ...... come on, Borders!) comes in handy.

Am I wrong here?

out of curiosity what are the top 10 clinical programs? my guess is that it includes, sdsu/ucsd joint program, uw - seattle and ucla.

 

[JockNerd]

out of curiosity what are the top 10 clinical programs? my guess is that it includes, sdsu/ucsd joint program, uw - seattle and ucla.

Like Ollie said, it's not really possible to rank programs in that way. The "top" programs will depend ENTIRELY on *your* research interests. So, for me for example, SDSU and UCLA aren't even on the radar and even didn't make my first potential school cull. For someone else, those schools could be ideal.

If you want to look at top anything, look at the top people in your research area. Whatever universities they're at are, by default, "top-tier."

 

[yikes]

yeah, i was just curious if there were more recent estimates out there than the social pscyh list.

i've been focusing on research matches when compiling my school list, but after showing it to someone in the field, they suggested i knock off a few of the lesser known schools. he said that often the overall quality of the psych program at your graduate institution comes in to play when applying for post grad jobs. though i'm sure if you're working with the number 1 prof in your field it doesn't really matter where you are.

 

[Ollie123]

Yup, that's pretty much it. School name matters more for academic jobs than for clinical jobs just because academic jobs are SO competitive these days.

I don't think anyone would go so far as to say where you go to school doesn't matter AT ALL. If you're trying to narrow the list down, I think culling some lesser known schools is reasonable if most other factors are equal. The main point we seem to try and impart here is that it isn't like law school, and you cannot say that going to the #5 school will open substantially more doors for you than the #7 school, or even the #25 school. Other programs tend to be much more hierarchical than psychology.

For a pure research productivity ranking, I actually doubt all 3 of those schools are top 10, if any of them are. Certainly they are all excellent, and certainly fall in the "Tier 1" category, but this just goes to prove my point. The issue is productivity rankings mean little to a student because the productivity of the SCHOOL means jack **** to them, its the productivity of their lab that matters. Thus, you can infer general trends since you won't see UCLA hiring folks who don't publish, but even they will have some labs that are WAY more productive than others.

 

[psychanon]

There is always US News, but they're not particularly valid (however, it is possible that it accurately represents what people perceive to be the quality of the different programs). I'm not so sure about that social psych list-- it is extremely outdated (e.g., NYU hasn't had an accredited clinical program in years). If you're interested in top clinical training, I don't think that there is a good list. If you're interested in research, there are some empirically-driven ways of comparing programs. For example, in this study:

Roy, K.M., Roberts, M.C., & Stewart, P.K., (2006). Research Productivity and Academic Lineage in Clinical Psychology: Who Is Training the Faculty to Do Research?Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(7), Jul 2006. pp. 893-905.

they looked at how many pubs each program produced. In addition, you may want to look at the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science (http://psych.arizona.edu/apcs/members.php), which accredits programs that have a record of committing to empirical approaches. It's not a ranked, just a list. Not every good program is on there, but pretty much every program on there is good (so it's a good place to start).

Back to the original topic of BU...it is very competitive and, though decent and with a good faculty, its competitiveness is not commensurate to its quality. I have heard that there is a sharp divide between CARD (anxiety) and non-CARD students, and that some students get mentored by post-docs rather than faculty. But then, I don't have any real inside information. It's worth applying if you're a good match, but I don't think it's really a dream school-- the number of applicants represents the location more than anything else, really.

 

[LosingMyMind]

For a pure research productivity ranking, I actually doubt all 3 of those schools are top 10, if any of them are. Certainly they are all excellent, and certainly fall in the "Tier 1" category, but this just goes to prove my point. The issue is productivity rankings mean little to a student because the productivity of the SCHOOL means jack **** to them, its the productivity of their lab that matters. Thus, you can infer general trends since you won't see UCLA hiring folks who don't publish, but even they will have some labs that are WAY more productive than others.

People around UW are certainly very proud of that #4 ranking. But just a small note, individually, clinical students here really are productive. I'm not sure how many students there are exactly (figure about 6-9 clinical a year), but a good chunk of them have NRSAs or other outside funding and the average number of publications by the third year is well above the average discussed on another thread for those applying for internship. That's saying nothing of the lab productivity around here.

Just had to speak up on behalf of my fellow huskies!😛

 

[Ollie123]

Oh, didn't mean to imply that it wasn't one of the best, no offense was intended towards U Wash, UCLA, or any other graduates/students in those programs🙂

I looked at all of them and all of them were among my top choices, so clearly I think they're great programs🙂 My point was just that the rankings don't mean terribly much to an individual beyond general trends, and that its difficult to have an accurate ranking of schools beucase there's way too many criterion, and many of them are subjective.

 

[LosingMyMind]

Ollie,

Don't worry about it. I just wanted to make the point that, at least in the case of UW, the students and individual labs really are represented in general program and university descriptions. As I'm sure many others are. But its certainly not the most reliable way to examine a program.