PhD/PsyD Careers in mental health and notes on what to avoid in a program

[PsychSupreme]

Hello, all! Myself and few others over at Reddit are tired of getting the exact same questions about routes one can take to practice therapy or work in mental health, as well as questions regarding PsyD vs PhD, and about specific institutions which are notoriously predatory. To help combat this and lessen the repetition of the forum, we are creating a "Careers in Mental Health Omnibus" and a "Program Red Flags" guide. I would love solicit feedback on the documents we are compiling, particularly the notes on what program characteristics can be thought of as red flags! (Feel free to provide any feedback about these documents. These are very, very rough drafts written in a total of 2 work days by myself, so they are heavy on content but light on being well-organized and edited). Thanks, everyone!

Note: These are meant to be a tad snarky and light-hearted, but if the snark needs toning down, please let me know.

Careers in Mental Health Omnibus

docs.google.com

The Long and Short of Graduate School: Gaining Admissions, What to Look for in a Program, and Funding Your Education

docs.google.com

Editing to add a second version of the first link...this version is still a work in progress but is based on feedback received here and elsewhere. Note that I am still in the midst of adding feedback, so some stuff mentioned here may not be present yet.

Careers in Mental Health (Omnibus v. 2)

docs.google.com

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDr]

Is this the subreddit that requires a copy of your ID and license?

 

[PsychSupreme]

Is this the subreddit that requires a copy of your ID and license?

No! We are just a few people who are generally frustrated with the extant student-aimed subreddit due to poor moderation, and are considering starting a new one. The extant subreddit has the same questions about online schools, certain notoriously predatory institutions, PsyD vs. PhD, etc. time and again, plus (hyperbolically) millions of "book recommendation" threads in which there will inevitably be some well-meaning but misguided student recommending pop-sci books or giving sweeping recommendations about what "everyone in the field needs to be reading." Usually these books are on the self-help side or are books which are authored by legitimate scholars but which are controversial based on some of the claims they make (e.g., The Body Keeps the Score). We want a place where all the FAQs about grad school, the student process, professional psychology, psychological science, etc. can be posted and where discussions are moderated a little better to prevent the proliferation of bad career advice ("Just do a PsyD, those are for ppl who don't like research!") and bad science discussions. We basically want to help advocate for better career advice in a way which allows people to read all this information before asking the same question for the 100,000th time. Basically a more exhaustive version of Mitch's Uncensored Advice.

 

[forcefive17]

I can appreciate the spirit of this. Looking at your list, I see the usual suspects. However, I was surprised to see Chestnut Hill. Is it due to cost? Is it due to their consortium? If I remember correctly (when I was applying to programs 13 years ago), they've always offered some sort of funding and their consortium is APA accredited. Their licensure rate, while not stellar, sits at 81%. I'm not sure that I would list them as "predatory".

 

[PsychSupreme]

I can appreciate the spirit of this. Looking at your list, I see the usual suspects. However, I was surprised to see Chestnut Hill. Is it due to cost? Is it due to their consortium? If I remember correctly (when I was applying to programs 13 years ago), they've always offered some sort of funding and their consortium is APA accredited. Their licensure rate, while not stellar, sits at 81%. I'm not sure that I would list them as "predatory".

Thanks! It's possible I was simply incorrect to put it on there.

 

[WisNeuro]

Is this the subreddit that requires a copy of your ID and license?

Didn't need ID, and just a redacted version of a license. But, you should see that place. It's a plaintiff lawyer's wet dream.

 

[PsychSupreme]

Didn't need ID, and just a redacted version of a license. But, you should see that place. It's a plaintiff lawyer's wet dream.

I've heard of such a subreddit existing but never personally experienced it.

 

[WisNeuro]

I've heard of such a subreddit existing but never personally experienced it.

It exists, but it's a pretty mixed bag. I think any MH professional can join, so even though it's private, the expertise level really isn't that much elevated from a general open reddit forum. Less ****posting, but plenty of simply terrible advice and lack of knowledge.

 

[PsychSupreme]

It exists, but it's a pretty mixed bag. I think any MH professional can join, so even though it's private, the expertise level really isn't that much elevated from a general open reddit forum. Less ****posting, but plenty of simply terrible advice and lack of knowledge.

Unfortunately, many psychotherapists leave school, open shop, and completely forget everything about being scientifically-minded. I cannot begin to estimate how many times I've seen therapists tout their expertise in all sorts of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. A particular person on Reddit a few weeks ago was talking about his/her expertise in neurolinguistic processing, so...still a long way to go exorcise pseudoscience from the ranks (though, to be fair, this is a problem with all healthcare topics, from nutrition woo, to workout woo, to quack medicine).

 

[psych.meout]

I can appreciate the spirit of this. Looking at your list, I see the usual suspects. However, I was surprised to see Chestnut Hill. Is it due to cost? Is it due to their consortium? If I remember correctly (when I was applying to programs 13 years ago), they've always offered some sort of funding and their consortium is APA accredited. Their licensure rate, while not stellar, sits at 81%. I'm not sure that I would list them as "predatory".

Looking at the stats it definitely seems predatory.

https://www.chc.edu/sites/default/files/Uploads/Documents/Academic/Graduate/Student-Admissions-Outcomes-and-Other-Data-2007-2017.pdf

Their internship match rate was consistently less than 50% and then suddenly it jumps up to the 90s in a single year shortly after their captive internship comes online?

And an 81% licensure rate for a PsyD program seems to be pretty bad to me. It's not like it's a clinical science program with students from each cohort going into academia. It's a practitioner-focused program with 1 out of every 5 graduates unable to get licensed.

 

[PsychSupreme]

So I think the better question I have is: Is it even appropriate to have a list of such programs? I really would not want to alienate any current students or alumni, or make it seem as if I am attacking them rather than the systems in place. I do, however, think that publishing a list of Red Flags in an accessible format is useful as an informational tool for prospective students. Forums like this one are great for answering questions and disseminating information, but it seems that, that information is often spread thinly across many threads, many comments, and many forum websites. My vision is a one-stop shop (a single Google Doc folder, for instance) full of information about different career paths, ways to prepare for grad school, knowing if a doctoral degree makes sense, different training models, red flags, etc. which can be divvied out freely with a simple hyperlink. Think Mitch's Uncensored or the Insider's Guide, but more thorough than the former and more accessible (and free!) than the latter (not to mention more easily broken down into individual documents which can be read one-by-one). I feel strongly about this information being better organized, but appreciate any guidance on how to weave a cautionary tale about predatory programs without inadvertently engaging in unprofessional conduct (i.e., anything that looks like an attack on others who are affiliated with these programs).

 

[WisNeuro]

Looking at the stats it definitely seems predatory.

https://www.chc.edu/sites/default/files/Uploads/Documents/Academic/Graduate/Student-Admissions-Outcomes-and-Other-Data-2007-2017.pdf

Their internship match rate was consistently less than 50% and then suddenly it jumps up to the 90s in a single year shortly after their captive internship comes online?
View attachment 355212
And an 81% licensure rate for a PsyD program seems to be pretty bad to me. It's not like it's a clinical science program with students from each cohort going into academia. It's a practitioner-focused program with 1 out of every 5 graduates unable to get licensed.

Is it a captive internship site, or a consortium? I was under the impression that it was the latter. Still not ideal, but better than just creating one clinic for all of their unmatched people.

 

[psych.meout]

Is it a captive internship site, or a consortium? I was under the impression that it was the latter. Still not ideal, but better than just creating one clinic for all of their unmatched people.

Just checked, it's a consortium, and while you're right that it's better than a single clinic, it's still problematic, because they're pretty explicitly using it to game their internship stats. That's predatory behavior to me.

Psy.D. Practicums and Internships | Chestnut Hill College

Students who enter the program with bachelor’s degrees complete a three-semester field placement beginning in the fall of Year II. All students complete a practicum that focuses on psychological assessment in Year III and a practicum that focuses on psychotherapy in Year IV. Students have the...

www.chc.edu

 

[WisNeuro]

Just checked, it's a consortium, and while you're right that it's better than a single clinic, it's still problematic, because they're pretty explicitly using it to game their internship stats. That's predatory behavior to me.

Psy.D. Practicums and Internships | Chestnut Hill College

Students who enter the program with bachelor’s degrees complete a three-semester field placement beginning in the fall of Year II. All students complete a practicum that focuses on psychological assessment in Year III and a practicum that focuses on psychotherapy in Year IV. Students have the...

www.chc.edu

Definitely, not great. Just have to figure out where this stands on the suck scale. Some choice in internships, and, if their internship placement list is accurate, there are a lot of solid ones there. So, while I would wholeheartedly recommend people always go for fully funded programs, I'd recommend CH over places like Albizu, Chicago School, and most of the Alliant's.

 

[PsychSupreme]

Definitely, not great. Just have to figure out where this stands on the suck scale. Some choice in internships, and, if their internship placement list is accurate, there are a lot of solid ones there. So, while I would wholeheartedly recommend people always go for fully funded programs, I'd recommend CH over places like Albizu, Chicago School, and most of the Alliant's.

Should I take this discussion as passive assent that publishing this list is okay? See my comment above.

 

[WisNeuro]

Should I take this discussion as passive assent that publishing this list is okay? See my comment above.

Personally, I'd be more comfortable outlining the things that make programs good or bad, rather than publishing a list of programs that I name as predatory. Otherwise, you run the risk of testing out libel laws.

 

[PsychSupreme]

Personally, I'd be more comfortable outlining the things that make programs good or bad, rather than publishing a list of programs that I name as predatory. Otherwise, you run the risk of testing out libel laws.

I think I agree with this assessment.

 

[borne_before]

As a homie with a phd in school psychology, love what y'all wrote. You could add something about Ed.S. level school psychologists to the mix (meaning that they do not get licensure from the state, and are instead certified by the state dept. of education. Usually, its a two year coursework gig with an internship. Some people at this level have a masters in school psych plus a cert, if they don't have the eds.

 

[PsychSupreme]

As a homie with a phd in school psychology, love what y'all wrote. You could add something about Ed.S. level school psychologists to the mix (meaning that they do not get licensure from the state, and are instead certified by the state dept. of education. Usually, its a two year coursework gig with an internship. Some people at this level have a masters in school psych plus a cert, if they don't have the eds.

Thanks for this clarification. Can you provide me more information on this? This is one of the things I was less sure about--I know some states require the EdS for practice, while others allow those with just the MA or MEd in school psych to practice. I think my original (not current) home state allowed the latter but I'm not that familiar with school psych as pertains to its regulatory standards.

 

[borne_before]

Thanks for this clarification. Can you provide me more information on this? This is one of the things I was most confused about--I know some states require the EdS for practice, while others allow those with just the MA or MEd in school psych to practice. I think my original (not current) home state allowed the latter but I'm not that familiar with school psych as pertains to its regulatory standards.

The specialist-level degree is considered the entry-level degree in school psychology. No state or territory requires more than a specialist-level degree. A specialist-level degree in school psychology is generally accepted for certification or licensure to provide full professional practice within schools or related educational settings. Degree paths that will allow you to enter school psychology include but are not limited to: EdS (Education Specialis), MA (Master of Art), MS (Master of Science) with a CAS (Certificate of Advanced Study) or CAGS (Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study), often awarded in conjunction with a Master’s degree. This path sets you to only work in school settings, under the purview of a state department of education (as opposed to the board of psych examiners underseeing licensed psychologists with doctoral degrees which allows you to work outside of schools).

 

[PsychSupreme]

The specialist-level degree is considered the entry-level degree in school psychology. No state or territory requires more than a specialist-level degree. A specialist-level degree in school psychology is generally accepted for certification or licensure to provide full professional practice within schools or related educational settings. Degree paths that will allow you to enter school psychology include but are not limited to: EdS (Education Specialis), MA (Master of Art), MS (Master of Science) with a CAS (Certificate of Advanced Study) or CAGS (Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study), often awarded in conjunction with a Master’s degree. This path sets you to only work in school settings, under the purview of a state department of education (as opposed to the board of psych examiners underseeing licensed psychologists with doctoral degrees which allows you to work outside of schools).

But isn't the master's degree less than the specialist degree? I guess I'm asking if there's a difference in practice scope in jobs where the master's is consider entry level and jobs where the specialist's is considered entry-level, such as how it is (used to be?) in Georgia, where those with the master's in school psych could practice before attaining the specialist's degree on top of that.

 

[cara susanna]

As a Reddit addict, can I ask which sub this is for?

 

[PsychSupreme]

As a Reddit addict, can I ask which sub this is for?

Well, I am hoping to create a new subreddit that is better moderated than the current student sub. It's not very well moderated and our attempts to address our thoughts with the mods have either been deleted or fallen upon deaf ears.

 

[borne_before]

But isn't the master's degree less than the specialist degree? I guess I'm asking if there's a difference in practice scope in jobs where the master's is consider entry level and jobs where the specialist's is considered entry-level, such as how it is (used to be?) in Georgia, where those with the master's in school psych could practice before attaining the specialist's degree on top of that.

Well, its a masters plus an education certification (master+cert). But theyre usually the same amount of credit hours as an eds.

 

[R. Matey]

Great effort, few suggestions:

1. You probably should mention that prospective students should attend a CACREP accredited program for a master's in counseling. As much as I hate on CACREP, students will have a harder time getting licensed in some states and may not be eligible to take the national counseling exam to be licensed. Check out websites for CACREP and the NBCC for more information on this. Hopefully, this will change in the future, but sadly this is reality right now.

1a. the CACREP website will also give you some guidance on different subfields of counseling and direct you to various orgs associated with them. For instance, mental health counseling is probably what you're describing in your overview of LPCs, but there are other subfields.

1b. Also mention about something about the Counselor Education and Supervision Ph.D.

2. I think we're past the point of saying that counselors and counseling psychologists work with less severe clinical presentations. This was historically true because we mainly lived in counseling centers like 40 years ago, but the landscape has greatly shifted for both subfields making the day-to-day work between your average counseling and clinical psychologist essentially undistinguishable. There are clinical psychologists who only see families and couples and there are counseling psychologists who are neuropsychologists and work in hospitals. Counseling centers have also become more front-line community mental health treatments as more people go to college and mental health becomes more normalized.

2a. The options for a master's level counselor post-graduation, pre-license are also not the widest so many of them end up working in community mental health billing Medicaid where they gain exposure to severe clinical presentations. If you're looking for words to add to distinguish the two, you can note that many counseling psychology programs are housed in schools of education and program faculty traditionally emphasize multicultural competence, contextual factors, vocational guidance, training/supervision, and process-outcome research in their research programs where as clinical faculty research mental health disorders, neuroscience, behavioral medicine etc.

3. Maybe add a section on school counseling.

 

[bluecolourskies]

bless you for this undertaking is all I can say, SDN is great and this sounds like a great additional resources to have all in one place!

 

[MAClinician]

Another red flag for predatory programs is when you have to speak to an “admissions counselor “ first. Most legit programs will have you in contact with the program staff (training director, PI, admin staff who process applications, etc) if you have questions or want more info outside of what is listed on the website. If you are talking to an admissions counselor first, who doesn’t know all the details about how the program is structured etc, then you probably look closer at where you are applying.

 

[PsychSupreme]

Thanks, all, for the feedback! I will work on these some more soon—currently dealing with a mild COVID case and resting, but look forward to incorporating your suggestions in a few days when I have a little more energy. Lol

 

[PsychSupreme]

1b. Also mention about something about the Counselor Education and Supervision Ph.D.


3. Maybe add a section on school counseling.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm not particularly familiar with the Ph.D. you mentioned. Could you elaborate just a bit? (And I will be sure to do my own HW on it and not put the burden of my work onto others.) Also, I did debate whether or not to include school counseling in the original draft, good to hear that some think it would be good to add. I'll have to do my HW on that as well...my understanding is that it is an MEd (or other education masters) in school counseling.

 

[R. Matey]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm not particularly familiar with the Ph.D. you mentioned. Could you elaborate just a bit (and I will be sure to do my own HW on it and not put the burden of my work onto others). Also, I did debate whether or not to include school counseling in the original draft, good to hear that some think it would be good to add. I'll have to do my HW on that as well...my understanding is that it is an MEd (or other education masters) in school counseling.

School counseling is its own separate licensing process that varies by state. Some states have specific education requirements, others do not. ASCA is the national org for school counseling so it will be a good starting place to get more information.

The Counselor Education Ph.D. is the ACA sanctioned education degree for CACREP accredited programs. It will prepare students to teach in these programs as well as do research, but not much else. If it sounds insular, it's because it is. However, counseling students from CACREP accredited master's programs are often pushed into these types of programs when they express an interest in doctoral education. When I went to my own CACREP faculty to ask for letters for admission to counseling psychology doctoral programs, they looked at me as if I had burned their houses down, but they did do it in the end. More info on CES is on the CACREP website, which I linked earlier.

 

[psycle708]

LPA and psychometrist positions aren't rare in my area, FWIW.

I recommend adding a header or ending note explaining who this info is coming from - who you are essentially. Resources like this are great and I think you have a lot of good info, but I think it's important for people to be able to consider the inevitable bias/expertise of the person/group giving the info. I appreciate that you listed resources at the end, even for careers you didn't say much about.

 

[PsychSupreme]

LPA and psychometrist positions aren't rare in my area, FWIW.

Thanks! That's good to know. I was using those terms from a more national standpoint but I can see where it wouldn't make much sense in some states where those positions are more common. I definitely plan to flesh this out more and add more transparency with time. I am incorporating all of this feedback into a cleaner, more polished second version which is still being built. Please feel free to check that out, as I think it is doing a better job of organizing all of this content and making it accessible for people.

 

[Mental_Stealth]

"Predatory" is one way of putting these things, but it would be nice if there were consensus on the definition of a "predatory" institution. Some schools will have worse stats for matching, etc. due to a variety of factors. Does that make them predatory? Non-competive, maybe, but that does not necessarily mean predatory. By the way many people look at this we could term all unfunded programs "predatory," although I wouldn't. A lot of the unfunded brick and mortar schools are attended by people who prioritize geography for one reason or another, often because they have families, partners with jobs, etc. Or maybe they simply don't want to move to Pocatello or a Dakota or wherever. But many students who prioritize not moving may be likely to assume that grad school won't take up as much time or energy as it might need to if they are going to have strong enough internship applications. Is it the school? Or the people who are attracted to such a school? Some specific online/ low-residency programs are going to get more general agreement about being predatory, for obvious reasons.

A site or resource that helps people understand individual programs might do better to just be more descriptive and less concerned with labeling schools as predatory or not. If would also be useful if people with inside knowledge could help break down what it might take to be more successful in such programs. For instance (since it was mentioned above) does Chestnut Hill work well for students who are willing to spend a certain amount of time per week working on their program-related duties? Or for people willing to leave the metro area for internship? The people whom I know who attended that school have had successful careers for what they were hoping to do. I know a lot of people who would not want to go those routes, and CH would be a bad fit for them. I also know funded programs who would be a bad fit for certain people and some where almost anyone would be miserable.

I would really like to see more information from those who know about funded programs. People get so desperate to get in SOMEWHERE because of the competitive nature of funded clinical psychology programs. But some of these departments or programs are a trainwreck. And some labs are particularly bad. But the places are so small that everyone is afraid to say anything. Just look at all the lawsuits, suicides, etc. that have made news over the years. And those were only the news-makers.

If someone wanted to make a usable, easy to find site that helped with all of that, I would consider them a hero.

Another thing: people will tell you to ask the students when you interview. How many students are going to tell applicants (virtual strangers) that they work for an abusive PI or that half the faculty in their department couldn't run their own study from idea to publication if their life depended on it. They might say some subtle thing hoping applicants will notice, but the applicants are so nervous and excited that they rarely read between the lines. And everyone thinks they are the exception - tougher, more willing, more desperate, more used to working with difficult people. Academia is nothing like anywhere else. I know at least one school where most of the faculty would be fired within the first 6 months if they tried to work with others in a typical company or organization. And I am being generous here!

 

[futureapppsy2]

School counseling is its own separate licensing process that varies by state. Some states have specific education requirements, others do not. ASCA is the national org for school counseling so it will be a good starting place to get more information.

The Counselor Education Ph.D. is the ACA sanctioned education degree for CACREP accredited programs. It will prepare students to teach in these programs as well as do research, but not much else. If it sounds insular, it's because it is. However, counseling students from CACREP accredited master's programs are often pushed into these types of programs when they express an interest in doctoral education. When I went to my own CACREP faculty to ask for letters for admission to counseling psychology doctoral programs, they looked at me as if I had burned their houses down, but they did do it in the end. More info on CES is on the CACREP website, which I linked earlier.

A lot of CES PhD graduates also go into clinical admin positions. I wouldn’t say the degree is worthless by a long shot, especially if you want to teach masters-level students.

 

[PsychSupreme]

"Predatory" is one way of putting these things, but it would be nice if there were consensus on the definition of a "predatory" institution. Some schools will have worse stats for matching, etc. due to a variety of factors. Does that make them predatory? Non-competive, maybe, but that does not necessarily mean predatory. By the way many people look at this we could term all unfunded programs "predatory," although I wouldn't. A lot of the unfunded brick and mortar schools are attended by people who prioritize geography for one reason or another, often because they have families, partners with jobs, etc. Or maybe they simply don't want to move to Pocatello or a Dakota or wherever. But many students who prioritize not moving may be likely to assume that grad school won't take up as much time or energy as it might need to if they are going to have strong enough internship applications. Is it the school? Or the people who are attracted to such a school? Some specific online/ low-residency programs are going to get more general agreement about being predatory, for obvious reasons.

A site or resource that helps people understand individual programs might do better to just be more descriptive and less concerned with labeling schools as predatory or not. If would also be useful if people with inside knowledge could help break down what it might take to be more successful in such programs. For instance (since it was mentioned above) does Chestnut Hill work well for students who are willing to spend a certain amount of time per week working on their program-related duties? Or for people willing to leave the metro area for internship? The people whom I know who attended that school have had successful careers for what they were hoping to do. I know a lot of people who would not want to go those routes, and CH would be a bad fit for them. I also know funded programs who would be a bad fit for certain people and some where almost anyone would be miserable.

I would really like to see more information from those who know about funded programs. People get so desperate to get in SOMEWHERE because of the competitive nature of funded clinical psychology programs. But some of these departments or programs are a trainwreck. And some labs are particularly bad. But the places are so small that everyone is afraid to say anything. Just look at all the lawsuits, suicides, etc. that have made news over the years. And those were only the news-makers.

If someone wanted to make a usable, easy to find site that helped with all of that, I would consider them a hero.

Another thing: people will tell you to ask the students when you interview. How many students are going to tell applicants (virtual strangers) that they work for an abusive PI or that half the faculty in their department couldn't run their own study from idea to publication if their life depended on it. They might say some subtle thing hoping applicants will notice, but the applicants are so nervous and excited that they rarely read between the lines. And everyone thinks they are the exception - tougher, more willing, more desperate, more used to working with difficult people. Academia is nothing like anywhere else. I know at least one school where most of the faculty would be fired within the first 6 months if they tried to work with others in a typical company or organization. And I am being generous here!

Thanks for providing your thoughts! I am certainly in agreement that language of "predatory" or "not predatory" is probably best avoided, and that providing a list of things to look for in a program (and things which may warrant caution) is an overall better approach. I'm trying to phrase things in a way that makes those who assume they will be the exception to the rule--due to, as you said, assuming they are harder working, more desperate, etc. than others--realize just how hard it can be to excel in these programs, and rid them of that idea of "I'll succeed there because I'm the one who will claw their way to the top," but I am realizing that maybe the best we can do is provide the green and red flags and let people make whatever decision they make once they've heard the warnings.

 

[R. Matey]

A lot of CES PhD graduates also go into clinical admin positions. I wouldn’t say the degree is worthless by a long shot, especially if you want to teach masters-level students.

I have friends with this degree, it's not worthless, but they would even tell you it's extremely limited.

 

[PsychSupreme]

The "Careers in Mental Health (Omnibus)" form has now been significantly overhauled. I'm interested in whether people prefer this over the previous version.

Careers in Mental Health (Omnibus v. 2)

docs.google.com

 

[summerbabe]

By the way many people look at this we could term all unfunded programs "predatory," although I wouldn't. A lot of the unfunded brick and mortar schools are attended by people who prioritize geography for one reason or another, often because they have families, partners with jobs, etc. Or maybe they simply don't want to move to Pocatello or a Dakota or wherever.

It’s not a full definition but a non-predatory program is one likely focused on smaller cohorts and whose students could also generally be competitive for admission at funded programs.

But if a program admits a ton of people who wouldn’t even get interview offers at non-marquee funded PhDs, I think we are verging on predatory status.

And if ‘the PsyD is a clinical degree and only future academics go to PhDs’ (which is just a blatant lie) is a major part of the recruiting pitch since the most selective unfunded PsyDs seem to reject people quite often due to lack of research prep.

I would really like to see more information from those who know about funded programs. People get so desperate to get in SOMEWHERE because of the competitive nature of funded clinical psychology programs. But some of these departments or programs are a trainwreck. And some labs are particularly bad.

This would be ideal for prospective students but in addition to running into anonymity concerns, things change a lot over time.

I’m just a few years out from my PhD and since I’ve graduated, our former DCT has stepped down (they are nearing the end of their career and I think this was planned for in advance) and somebody else who I respect and believe is competent has taken on that role. And a younger prof who had an active lab decided to move for a tenure track gig at a more prestigious university.

So even as a recent grad, my program has experienced significant changes since my time there because a couple of people can really influence culture and expectations so extending that for professionals who’ve been in the field now for 10+ years, accuracy of that info may be shaky.

Another thing: people will tell you to ask the students when you interview. How many students are going to tell applicants (virtual strangers) that they work for an abusive PI or that half the faculty in their department couldn't run their own study from idea to publication if their life depended on it. They might say some subtle thing hoping applicants will notice, but the applicants are so nervous and excited that they rarely read between the lines.

I can only speak to my experience but we were strongly encouraged to be honest and candid in our applicant social mingle and via emails because that’s also a way of helping the program to screen for applicant fit.

I would give honest feedback about what I thought my overall program’s strengths/weaknesses, as well as that of my PI.

I’m sure that’s not always the case but regardless, I still think this is still one of the most important things a prospective student can do.

 

[R. Matey]

"Predatory" is one way of putting these things, but it would be nice if there were consensus on the definition of a "predatory" institution. Some schools will have worse stats for matching, etc. due to a variety of factors. Does that make them predatory? Non-competive, maybe, but that does not necessarily mean predatory. By the way many people look at this we could term all unfunded programs "predatory," although I wouldn't.

I would, especially if we're approaching > $100k overall cost for a clinical degree that does not return a competitive salary. And saying someone might have a bad time if they attend a funded program doesn't mean people shouldn't apply for them.

Edit: Also want to hear what's so bad about ID/ND/SD. Snowbiking is a blast.

 

[psych.meout]

I would, especially if we're approaching > $100k overall cost for a clinical degree that does not return a competitive salary. And saying someone might have a bad time if they attend a funded program doesn't mean people shouldn't apply for them.

Edit: Also want to hear what's so bad about ID/ND/SD. Snowbiking is a blast.

I saw someone on Reddit tell aspiring BIPOC students (they claimed to be BIPOC as well) that they can't and shouldn't attend programs in any of those states because those places are inherently bigoted and conservative.

 

[erg923]

I saw someone on Reddit tell aspiring BIPOC students (they claimed to be BIPOC as well) that they can't and shouldn't attend programs in any of those states because those places are inherently bigoted and conservative.

What the hell is "BIPOC???"

 

[R. Matey]

I saw someone on Reddit tell aspiring BIPOC students (they claimed to be BIPOC as well) that they can't and shouldn't attend programs in any of those states because those places are inherently bigoted and conservative.

Oh, the irony.

What the hell is "BIPOC???"

Definition of BIPOC

Black, Indigenous, (and) People of Color… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Temperance]

I saw someone on Reddit tell aspiring BIPOC students (they claimed to be BIPOC as well) that they can't and shouldn't attend programs in any of those states because those places are inherently bigoted and conservative.

That advice is so classically Reddit.

There are things that people need to know before moving to an area that may not be politically friendly to them, but it does everyone a disservice to issue blanket directives like that. People of color live in those states, too! What's living there like for them? That sort of information is far more helpful to an aspiring student than "don't go there".

 

[psych.meout]

That advice is so classically Reddit.

There are things that people need to know before moving to an area that may not be politically friendly to them, but it does everyone a disservice to issue blanket directives like that. People of color live in those states, too! What's living there like for them? That sort of information is far more helpful to an aspiring student than "don't go there".

It was definitely a blanket "If you're not White, Straight, and Cis, you can't and shouldn't live in those states, even for just grad school."

Some people pushed back and noted that there are plenty of BIPOC who live in those states their whole lives, especially in the Deep South and Western States, and their response was that those posters were being racist for telling a BIPOC person that they're wrong.

I definitely agree that applicants should get information about individual programs and the cities where they exist, but even then, how are these programs and places going to diversify and improve if applicants are being told to not even consider these places?

 

[ccool]

how are these programs and places going to diversify and improve if applicants are being told to not even consider these places?

Lol it’s up to the programs and places to make themselves more attractive to recruit and retain students from non-dominant communities. Not the responsibility of those applicants or students to do so.

 

[WisNeuro]

Lol it’s up to the programs and places to make themselves more attractive to recruit and retain students from non-dominant communities. Not the responsibility of those applicants or students to do so.

Meh, it's on both. If you want to limit your chances in what is a very competitive market for fully funded spots, that's on you. Opportunities exist, especially in less traditionally desirable locations. If people want to limit themselves to certain metros and settle for a diploma mill, that's their choice as well. Not really an either/or situation when both parties have agency.

 

[ccool]

Meh, it's on both. If you want to limit your chances in what is a very competitive market for fully funded spots, that's on you. Opportunities exist, especially in less traditionally desirable locations. If people want to limit themselves to certain metros and settle for a diploma mill, that's their choice as well. Not really an either/or situation when both parties have agency.

Oh certainly, I agree fully. It’s up to individuals to make the choices that suit them and to be prepared for the potential positive and negative outcomes that may come from them.

I was simply responding to the implication that it is on non-white students to attend programs in places where they have historically been unwelcome (or absent…for whatever reason) in order for programs to successfully recruit more non-white students and thus improve the climate for said students.

 

[Temperance]

Some people pushed back and noted that there are plenty of BIPOC who live in those states their whole lives, especially in the Deep South and Western States, and their response was that those posters were being racist for telling a BIPOC person that they're wrong.

Sigh. I hate Poe's law sometimes.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh certainly, I agree fully. It’s up to individuals to make the choices that suit them and to be prepared for the potential positive and negative outcomes that may come from them.

I was simply responding to the implication that it is on non-white students to attend programs in places where they have historically been unwelcome in order for programs to successfully recruit more non-white students and thus improve the climate for said students.

Sure, some programs can definitely do more. But, some good programs also get lumped into the "red state universally bad for BIPOC" mantra whether or not the program in that state deserves it or not. And, either way, if you want to shrink your potential career options pool, that's entirely your choice.

 

[ccool]

Sure, some programs can definitely do more. But, some good programs also get lumped into the "red state universally bad for BIPOC" mantra whether or not the program in that state deserves it or not. And, either way, if you want to shrink your potential career options pool, that's entirely your choice.

Lol if a person is making career decisions exclusively from the advice and opinions from people on anonymous Internet forums, I think they have much bigger problems to contend with.