Choosing a PHD Clinical program

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

fresnel

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
72
Reaction score
2
Members do not see this ad.
Advice:

Figure out where you fall in terms of wanting a practice based program, a research based program and somewhere in between. Programs are increasingly defining themselves as clinical science programs or practice based. Many of the programs that used to balance the two now focus more on research to distinguish their program (and students) from PsyD. Be truthful with yourself about what you really want.

Figure out what specialty areas you are interested in and make sure they are well represented in the programs you apply to. If you are interested in neuropsychology or child or health, make sure that there are classes, research and placement experiences in those areas. Don''t reason that you can fill in later. That is very hard to do because you won't be competitive for the kinds of internships or fellowships that would allow you to specialize if you don't have a foundation in graduate school.

Choose programs with specialty areas that you are interested in. You will likely work in a lab that focuses on a very specific phenomenon. If you are not interested in it, you will find it tedious.

Make sure the program has a cohesive faculty. There are plenty of programs where faculty don't get along and those programs can be deadly for students. A hot political atmosphere can make life miserable for students. Avoid programs with disenfranchised faculty members since they can signal a terrible climate for all.

Apply to programs in thriving communities. Isolated universities, particularly in economically depressed communities, of which there are many, often suffer from all kinds of problems. Those working there may become very defensive about the program and may be too invested in explaining how the community despair doesn't harm the school than they are in telling you the truth about their program. They are used to losing students who take a look around and see a depressed and depressing climate.

Choose programs that have gotten excellent APA reviews. Ask about the most recent accreditation review. Look for a renewal of 7 years. That is a thriving program. Be wary of programs that only got a 5 year renewal the last review cycle. That is a program with problems. Having continuous APA accreditation is not enough. You want a program that has gotten a 7 year renewal. You can determine the length of the renewal by finding out when a program was reviewed last and what year it is scheduled to be reviewed again. You have to hunt for the information (on APA's site) but it is there.

Clinical programs have had a predominantly female student body for at least a decade. A clinical program which still has has a predominately male faculty or one without any faculty members representing ethnicities beside white signal problems. The existing group of professors may explain away the problem by claiming that adjuncts or professors in areas outside clinical fill the "diversity" need. Stay clear. It may be that the white male professors have been there a long time and have created an atmosphere that is not conducive to supporting the careers of women or individuals of color. There is a characteristic pattern in such programs. There will be a group of male faculty members who have been there a good long time and who have nice lab space and resources. There will be a history of couple of women and members of minority groups who have shuffled through but left at the first opportunity.

Choose programs where students are supported by all the professors rather than being buried in the lab of one faculty member. Programs where students enter into someone's lab from the start often place their students at risk if there is a conflict between the student and the advisor.

Choose programs with an upbeat climate. Strained climates are lousy places to get an education.Look for signs of discomfort when you ask questions about the overall climate in the clinical program. Darting of eyes and long pauses may be telling.
 
For the record, I agree with most, but not all of this, and the OP's assumptions are that an applicant always has a choice in programs to attend, which is not the case. There are choices in what programs to apply to, but some of these factors (e.g. cohesiveness of faculty, upbeat climate) aren't obvious to applicants until interviews.

My few caveats:

A 5 year accreditation doesn't always mean the program is horrible; it could mean the program has gone through a rough patch and may be on the upswing. A question of "why 5 years" is a good one, though applicants may not be in the best position to judge the answer.

"Depressing community" is an opinion. It seems as though you're trying to get at "have a life outside of graduate school and find a place where you can do that" but an economically "depressed" community doesn't have to be a bad place or a place where people can't enjoy living.

I also think that applying to and selecting a graduate program involves "Know Thyself." If you hate small towns and have to be in a big city to thrive, then an isolated small town isn't the best spot for you. Working with a great professor in a politically divided department is a risk, certainly, but plenty of people do it. Don't get me wrong, overall department climate was something that was really important to me as a graduate student, but not everyone feels they have to be connected to the program to be a successful student.
 
Helpful, but there are a few problems with the post:

Accreditation for 7 years does not necessarily indicate a "thriving" program. Accredited programs are listed here http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/programs/clinical.aspx and though it doesn't list how long the accreditation was for, a search for 2018 reaccreditations shows a great many programs that have poor internship match rates (a better indicator of quality and available here (http://www.appic.org/Portals/0/downloads/APPIC_Match_Rates_2000-10_by_Univ.pdf) that are up for reaccreditation then.

Likewise, accreditation review in 5 years might not signify something glaring. Probation is certainly bad, of course.

I also don't know what "economically depressed" means. There are many good programs in places that are not economically well-off, especially if people are interested in working with economically disadvantaged persons. And, in a smaller city your program might be the only game in town for hospitals, the VA, CMH centers, etc., whereas in a large city you might compete for pracs with literally hundreds of doctoral students.

Likewise, I'm not sure what OP means by "Programs are increasingly defining themselves as clinical science programs or practice based." There are certainly some programs that do this, and membership in, say, the clinical science academy might make a difference, but it doesn't seem especially pervasive to me.
 
Last edited:
An APA renewal of 5 years indicates that APA was sufficiently concerned about the program to deny a 7 year renewal. it does suggest difficulties. Naturally if one has no choice and only one offer, then a problematic program is better than none...maybe. The current glut of psychology students competing for too few internship slots means that some students, even students from good programs, may not be matched. That would be less of a concern to me than internal problems in a program.

An economically depressed city is one where property values are declining, jobs are lost, unemployment is high, drop out rates are elevated, substance use is on the rise, and the public schools tend to be poor. Spending 4-6 years in a program situated in such a city can mean that there are few options for a life outside the university/program. And to anticipate objections, yes I know, graduate students have little extra time, but what little there is might be spent more gladly in a town with happy people. And I am aware that there are many programs in dilapidated cities in the rust belt. I'm suggesting this as a variable that may be overlooked by students. Given a choice, apply to programs in thriving cities. They are nicer places to spend your early to mid 20s.

In terms of the focus of the program, yes programs are increasingly defining themselves in terms of the research-clinical balance with many previously Boulder model programs shifting to clinical scientist.
 
fresnel said:
An APA renewal of 5 years indicates that APA was sufficiently concerned about the program to deny a 7 year renewal. it does suggest difficulties. Naturally if one has no choice and only one offer, then a problematic program is better than none...maybe. The current glut of psychology students competing for too few internship slots means that some students, even students from good programs, may not be matched. That would be less of a concern to me than internal problems in a program.

An economically depressed city is one where property values are declining, jobs are lost, unemployment is high, drop out rates are elevated, substance use is on the rise, and the public schools tend to be poor. Spending 4-6 years in a program situated in such a city can mean that there are few options for a life outside the university/program. And to anticipate objections, yes I know, graduate students have little extra time, but what little there is might be spent more gladly in a town with happy people. And I am aware that there are many programs in dilapidated cities in the rust belt. I'm suggesting this as a variable that may be overlooked by students. Given a choice, apply to programs in thriving cities. They are nicer places to spend your early to mid 20s.

In terms of the focus of the program, yes programs are increasingly defining themselves in terms of the research-clinical balance with many previously Boulder model programs shifting to clinical scientist.
Click to expand...

I think the key here is "defining themselves" rather than potentially changing anything about their programs themselves, likely in attempts to differentiate from some of the more diploma mill-esque schools out there where research is seemingly an afterthought.

On the 5 vs. 7 year issue, the technicalities that could lead to such a decision would cause me to speak with the program and/or APA (if possible) first before making any conclusions. Personally, I'd be much more inclined to go to a program that had a 5-year renewal and solid (accredited) internship match rates than a 7-year renewal and significantly lower match rates, in part because the higher internship placements serve as a vetting process for the program itself...its students are getting solid training, so they're matching.
 
There is probably no surefire way to avoid problematic programs. I suppose the best bet is one with a great internship match record and 7 year renewals. My hope is simply that students ask the tough questions-some of which are not considered by many.

Problems with renewals and/or matches are warning signs. Faculty members in a program I know are quick to talk away problems associated with their recent poor match record and accreditation issues-pointing to reasons beyond their control and unrelated to things that would impact on students. They want to attract students and are less motivated to change the things that caused the renewal/match issues-all of which impact on everyone.

So, while you may not have complete control and you may only have one offer, get answers to questions when you encounter problems in programs-so you make an informed decision.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
On the 5 vs. 7 year issue, the technicalities that could lead to such a decision would cause me to speak with the program and/or APA (if possible) first before making any conclusions. Personally, I'd be much more inclined to go to a program that had a 5-year renewal and solid (accredited) internship match rates than a 7-year renewal and significantly lower match rates, in part because the higher internship placements serve as a vetting process for the program itself...its students are getting solid training, so they're matching.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. Some anecdotal evidence from my own experience: I attended a very strong, very well respected program that had recently been awarded a 5 year renewal (with APA-internship match rates of 92-100% for the past 5 years. The program had revamped its track system to be more consistent with both APA goals and student interest (which I see as a positive thing), but because of the pretty substantial structure changes to the program, the accreditation committee wanted a return visit a little sooner. Not exactly signs of a failing program running rampant with problems, in my opinion. So I very much agree - it's worth asking the question rather than assuming and overlooking an otherwise strong program.
 
The 5 versus 7 year renewal may be a sign of a problem. I suppose maybe not. It depends upon the reason for the request for a quicker review. Likewise for problems with matches. The key is to be aware of the variable. The same with problems matching. It is just one other variable that should be considered. Given a choice, I'd choose a program that got a 7 year renewal and had a stable and high match rate. And I would certainly avoid a program with a consistently low match rate-like below 75%. I'd also avoid, like the plague, a program that did not get a 5 year renewal-I wouldn't consider one if I had an alternative. I probably wouldn't apply to such a program. Maybe I'd make an exception for a brand new program that got a 4 year renewal and is dedicated to securing complete APA approval the next round-unless there were other red flags. An existing older program with a 4 year renewal is a program in trouble and I would not trust the faculty to fully disclose why. It wouldn't matter to me if the program seemed the closest match to my dream school. Forget it! There are plenty of programs. Why court trouble?
 
Another red flag- For full time PhD programs, there is no reason for there to be any 6 year students in residence. Check to see how long it takes students to get out. Faculty often prefer grad students to paying staff. Professors with large labs and students who can't make it to internship after 4 years in full time residence are often using students for their own gain(pubs) with little concern for how they are placing their students' lives on hold. One senior physiological psychologist posing as a clinical one had to rob the lab of other faculty members in order to find senior students on track for graduating on time. Otherwise his own students took 7-10 years. His numbers only looked ok by factoring in those he took form other faculty.
 
fresnel said:
Another red flag- For full time PhD programs, there is no reason for there to be any 6 year students in residence. Check to see how long it takes students to get out. Faculty often prefer grad students to paying staff. Professors with large labs and students who can't make it to internship after 4 years in full time residence are often using students for their own gain(pubs) with little concern for how they are placing their students' lives on hold.
Click to expand...

This is completely inaccurate. Research-oriented (including "balanced") programs rarely adhere to the 4+1 model given the time needed to thoroughly train a student and facilitate a quality dissertation and other substantive research experience. Although it is possible to be successful and productive with a 4+1, it is not only unusual but also not ideal. A more reasonable timeline leads to publication opportunities that are important for the student's career, not the faculty member's.

Yes, a program with a median 7+1 or longer would be a red flag, but 5+1 and 6+1 medians are not at all unusual nor problematic. I suppose fresnel might be considering only clinically-focused programs with minimal dissertation requirements. Again, feasible, but not ideal. Fresnel, you might visit the student outcomes documentation from (any) 10-15 programs - you won't find many (any?) with a 4+1 median or mean.
 
I am confused about a few of your points and maybe you can clarify where you are getting your info from. Is it just your personal experience in the game? What exactly is your level of experience? I think this is important for readers to know before taking your post as more than a simple opinion.

While I agree that it is important to figure out how a program balances research and clinical work, it is necessary to learn the research component in a PhD program. One of the most frustrating experiences as a student is having a clinical supervisor who has not kept up with the literature or cannot explain why they do certain things in treatment (not just because "I've been doing it for 20 years this way and it works"). Therefore, it is important to not overlook the quality of research training as well. Being an informed consumer is important!

In smaller schools, it is not always possible to have multiple people that study one area. Sometimes classes offered in other departments will cover topics in the areas you actually work in, just a useful tip.

In terms of cohesive faculty, this is a dream. While many departments appear cohesive, at interview, it is all a show. They are putting on the best face for you just as you are putting on the best face for them. I think the match with your own advisor is the more important thing to judge (although it in itself is difficult to judge on interview).

Some really outstanding programs (e.g., SUNY Stonybrook) are not in booming places. Their grad students are not always unhappy and receive high quality training both clinically and research wise.

APA reviews have been covered by others. 7 years is not a hallmark of a good program. Not sure if you've ever been apart of a review process for APA, but difference between 5 and 7 year renewal can be very minuscule things.

Diversity in a program is always nice. Most schools have a diversity committee. Not necessarily a reason to not go to a program because they are not diverse due to sex or race. It's important that they are diverse in other ways as well

I'm not completely sure what you mean by being supported by all of the professors. There are not too many schools that have a non mentor model at some point. Most of the top programs require you to choose a mentor as you apply to them to gain admission.

Your post about programs that have students there for 6 years in residence is complete bologna. It is important to discuss this with your advisor early on in your career. As the internship balance gets worse, this also compounds the problem. Again, please show me evidence that programs with students who stay for more than 6 years are worse off than others. There are quite a few things that can be gained in staying longer at your graduate program as long as you and your advisor are on the same page.

It appears that you have put a lot of time into your posts, but there seems to be some bias there as well. Can you clarify the point of this thread?
 
fresnel said:
Another red flag- For full time PhD programs, there is no reason for there to be any 6 year students in residence.
Click to expand...

This ("no reason") is definitely an overstatement. There are lots of reasons for there to be a small number of people taking longer. In fact, if a person had an illness or something and had to take a year or two off, and the program didn't try to penalize them or kick them out, things like that are good things, not bad.

If their median grad time was something like 8 years that would be a red flag though.
 
MCParent said:
This ("no reason") is definitely an overstatement. There are lots of reasons for there to be a small number of people taking longer. In fact, if a person had an illness or something and had to take a year or two off, and the program didn't try to penalize them or kick them out, things like that are good things, not bad.

If their median grad time was something like 8 years that would be a red flag though.
Click to expand...

My program is 5-6 years plus internship.
 
Yeah. I have plenty of experience with APA accreditation reviews. If you consider Stony Brook not to be in a booming area ...well let's just say that you and I are using different scales....Stony Brook looks like a booming area compared to what I am talking about. Imagine being in a program in the worst parts of Detroit...that is the kind of situation I am suggesting students may want to think twice about. I was referring to relentlessly depressed towns/small cities isolated from any thriving city by 60 or more miles. You'd be surprised how many programs are in depressed areas. Stony Brook is hardly that...come on! 7 years is not the hallmark of a good program -don't choose a program on the basis of its getting a 7 year renewal--but look for reasons why a program was given 5 or fewer and watch out for problems. These are not absolutes. Certainly fewer than 5 and I'd not consider applying. My suggestion is to investigate. I've reviewed programs. I've participated in reviews. If I were a student I would attend to the things that I highlighted in my earlier posts. I'd stay clear of programs with certain red (or yellow) flags. the ones I mentioned are not usually ones considered by students. My suggestion to students is to consider them. You don't really need to know my level of expertise. I have no reason to misguide students. My advice is to read my suggestions and consider them along with all the other factors you are planning to consider.If you disagree, fine. No point in not considering my points.
 
"Research-oriented (including "balanced") programs rarely adhere to the 4+1 model given the time needed to thoroughly train a student and facilitate a quality dissertation and other substantive research experience. Although it is possible to be successful and productive with a 4+1, it is not only unusual but also not ideal. A more reasonable timeline leads to publication opportunities that are important for the student's career, not the faculty member's. " That is correct. And many faculty don't even consider the passage of years. But for some students every year in a program postpones important life events-especially for women who may want to have children. The biological clock is less considerate of senior faculty research desires.
 
MCParent said:
So, less than 8. 😉
Click to expand...

Yes 🙂. I was just supporting your statement and pointing out that some programs actually have a fairly high rate of 6th year students- and for some programs, that's definitely not a warning sign!
 
Also- where does one find the length of renewal? I know how to find out when the next site visit is, but that's about it.
 
For example, a program I know had 6 fifth year students last year-3 are now 6 year students. So they will apply for internship which they will complete in their 7th year. What in gods name takes 4 college years and 7 graduate school years to learn? Ya want a collaborator? Find one with a degree but let's stop the slave labor! Pushing 30 and still a student? come on!
 
fresnel said:
Pushing 30 and still a student? come on!
Click to expand...

lol--what? 18 to enter university, graduate at 22, 4 year program and one year internship = 27 at PhD if everything goes right. Even that math aside, this is strikingly ageist and disrespectful to many people who seek this as a second career, who may have had to work part-time in UG and taken longer, who may have shifted plans mid-UG, etc...
 
fresnel said:
Pushing 30 and still a student? come on!
Click to expand...

As a 32-year-old full-time PhD student splitting my time between university, a full-time position at the same university, and two small children, I find that statement either remarkably naive or breathtakingly arrogant - haven't decided which. Yes, some folks are pushing 30 and still students - some of us really old coots are over 30 and still students! Oh, the horror!
 
I call Trolly McTrollerson. Or a horrifically misinformed person who for some reason is motivated to disseminate misinformation or a really striking lack of information. I responded upthread because I didn't want readers who genuinely are seeking information to think that these posts are valid, but otherwise I don't think the poster is worth the time.
 
InNae said:
I call Trolly McTrollerson. Or a horrifically misinformed person who for some reason is motivated to disseminate misinformation or a really striking lack of information. I responded upthread because I didn't want readers who genuinely are seeking information to think that these posts are valid, but otherwise I don't think the poster is worth the time.
Click to expand...

I agree.. or someone who's upset with his/her program.
 
My point is not that people should not be in school at 30 but that there is something wrong with an educational system that keeps people in school full time for 11 years except if someone is a surgical resident. If you think being a full time graduate student for 7 years after getting your BA/BS is fine, go for it. From my perspective, a program that keeps their students for 7 years is doing something wrong. That is my opinion. You can accuse me of trolling or anything else you want to show disrespect for my opinion. I could care less. I'm sensing a bunch of aged males typing away while thinking themselves clever. not.
 
fresnel said:
something wrong with an educational system that keeps people in school full time for 11 years
Click to expand...

Who said anything about 11 years?

4 year undergrad + 5/6 year graduate program is the norm is basically all PhD degrees in every field, if not longer for some.

Are you an undergrad? You seem rather misinformed about the processes. Which is fine, but not necessarily a position from which to try to dispense advice.
 
fresnel said:
"Research-oriented (including "balanced") programs rarely adhere to the 4+1 model given the time needed to thoroughly train a student and facilitate a quality dissertation and other substantive research experience. Although it is possible to be successful and productive with a 4+1, it is not only unusual but also not ideal. A more reasonable timeline leads to publication opportunities that are important for the student's career, not the faculty member's. " That is correct. And many faculty don't even consider the passage of years. But for some students every year in a program postpones important life events-especially for women who may want to have children. The biological clock is less considerate of senior faculty research desires.
Click to expand...

As a female PhD student, I personally hate the idea often tossed around in these conversations that I need to be more considerate of my "biological clock" for two primary reasons:

1. Do you really feel that smart, driven female doctoral or future doctoral students haven't considered these factors previously as part of making an informed choice for our futures? Do you really think that we need someone on the internet to tell us how we should arrange my priorities? This leads to point number two:

2. Having children is not my first priority in life, and I resent the implication that it should be. At this time and based on an informed review of my goals and options, I've chosen to enter a 5+1 program, and I look forward to the research opportunities that this will afford me. Please don't assume that this is a choice that's bad for women based on what you think our priorities ought to be. Some women may prioritized having children earlier, and I'm willing to bet that those women are making graduate school decisions accordingly.

Sorry for the derail into feminism-land, y'all--this is just a notion that grinds my gears a bit.
 
Erm... I'm 27 and just starting a 6-7 year PhD (including my year of internship). So I shall be rolling into a post-doc right around the age of 34. Don't be an ageist. If I'm okay with it, then you certainly should be.

Show me someone who can go into a PhD program right after undergraduate and become competent in psychology, statistics, health/medicine, clinical work, and have numerous and diverse experiences in teaching, clinical work, and research in 3-4 years, including hundreds of clinical hours and multiple first-author publications and conference presentations- and I call BS. It's difficult enough to accomplish and learn everything on the current timeline.
 
I'm going to agree with a point MCParent made that if the median time to completion is something like 8 years, then yes, that would be a red flag to me. But if the median is closer 5.5 or 6 years and there are a few students who take 7, then that wouldn't cause me any concern.

At least in my experience, it's been the choice of the student to stick around longer (even at research-heavy programs) when that's occurred rather than them having been somehow pressured by an advisor.

The pressuring I've seen has typically happened in departments outside psychology (e.g., engineering). More often than not, though, it's generally the problem of one or two specific professors rather than of a department as a whole.

As for the timeline, I'd say it does seem to take most folks 5+1 years to end up feeling competent in everything they're supposed to know, although I've certainly seen 4+1 work as well (along with a formal postdoc). I can say with certainty that the additional 2 years for a neuropsych postdoc is a necessity for someone to be competent in that area as well, so that would bump anyone's total to at least 7 years of training.
 
fresnel said:
But for some students every year in a program postpones important life events-especially for women who may want to have children. The biological clock is less considerate of senior faculty research desires.
Click to expand...


How is it that having a research career and having children are incompatible?

For you, maybe; try telling that to some of your professors who have kids.
 
Some of the posters disagree with my recommendations. That's great because discussion means that the issues are relevant. These are my opinions. Because you don't share them does not mean I am not informed, educated or experienced. Degrading my opinions won't make dissuade me from expressing my opinions. Most of my suggestions reflect common sense.
Students should consider: The accreditation history of a program, the number of years it takes students to move through a program, the internship match history of the program, Seem pretty basic to me. There are other things to consider too. I suggest these because many students don't know enough to think of these as factors. I believe that they are important. However, how could a student be mislead by these suggestions. The student can alway seek more information if the students finds a program with a poor accreditation history appealing. Perhaps those objecting to this basic suggestion are faculty members in such programs. You'd want your students well informed about these factors before committing now wouldn't you?
 
To MC Parent, I am not talking about students who have taken time off or been in another field or studied part time. My suggestion is that a program that tends to keep students on their campus full time for 7 plus years is doing a disservice to the students. Full time study for 7 years followed by an internship seem way too long. I favor postdoctoral training where students can earn a living wage rather than spending the time prior to internship. I think the field should return to a model that allows students to move through graduate programs in a reasonable amount of time followed by postdoctoral training for those wanting more research experience. Regardless of whether a student desires a program that keeps them in graduate school for 7+ years or not, they should certainly consider that as a factor that influences their choice of a graduate program. More information is always better.
 
Some of the posters disagree with my recommendations. That's great because discussion means that the issues are relevant. These are my opinions. Because you don't share them does not mean I am not informed, educated or experienced. Degrading my opinions won't make dissuade me from expressing my opinions. Most of my suggestions reflect common sense.
Students should consider: The accreditation history of a program, the number of years it takes students to move through a program, the internship match history of the program, Seem pretty basic to me. There are other things to consider too. I suggest these because many students don't know enough to think of these as factors. I believe that they are important. However, how could a student be mislead by these suggestions. The student can alway seek more information if the students finds a program with a poor accreditation history appealing. Perhaps those objecting to this basic suggestion are faculty members in such programs. You'd want your students well informed about these factors before committing now wouldn't you?
 
fresnel said:
To MC Parent, I am not talking about students who have taken time off or been in another field or studied part time.
Click to expand...

This isn't what you said above ("no reason," etc.). Your new ideas, tempered after reading the valid points from the folks who disagreed with you, are more correct.
 
Oh MCParent, you've outed me...I really meant to say what you believe. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
PhD/PsyD USUHS Clinical Psychology 2026
Replies
1
Views
2K
dukun8ter
dukun8ter
S
Duquesne University Clinical Psychology PhD
Replies
5
Views
2K
sb1129
S
Psycho Bunny
Clinical PHD vs Counseling PHD?
Replies
5
Views
3K
MCParent
MCParent
J
No Funding at St. John's University (clinical psychology PhD)
Replies
5
Views
3K
smalltownpsych
smalltownpsych
R
Clinical Doctoral Program Admissions 2016-2024
Replies
22
Views
2K
R. Matey
R. Matey
Top