Clinical applicant denied for being "too young"?

[futureapppsy2]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelsey-caetanoanolles/too-young-for-college-my-_b_940794.html

I'm curious as to what you all think of this editorial, by a clinical PhD applicant at UIUC who was allegedly denied for being "too young" (17). '

Admittedly, my first thought was that I wonder what her vita is like, given that the only academic qualification mentioned is straight A's in her last semester. No publications, presentations, or research experience are mentioned either way, so we really no little about her app, other than that she's obviously quite smart, to start college at 14 and graduate at 17. I do wonder how much research experience should could have gotten in those three years, though. I'm not saying she's a poor applicant (as I know nothing about her field-specific qualifications), but it seems odd that the article focuses solely on her age, her high school ACT score, and one semester of grades. Maybe it's just me, though.....

I also think there could be liabilities if they started clinical work before she turned 18, but that probably wouldn't be the case in many programs, as many start clinical work in second year.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrGachet]

I personally don't see an issue with it. There have been younger people getting in medical school. She sounds smart. So the only issue would be emotional maturity, but seeing how some of my profs have not reached that stage, she would fit right in.

 

[PsychPhDone]

I couldn't help myself. I had to reply. There's got to be more to the story besides age.

 

[DrGachet]

I couldn't help myself. I had to reply. There's got to be more to the story besides age.

we got ourselves a smart and politically inclined young lady, methinks.

 

[roubs]

I couldn't help myself. I had to reply. There's got to be more to the story besides age.

It looks like she also went there for undergrad, which at many programs would be another knock against you.

 

[Ollie123]

Formal clinical work yes, but many will be working informally in their first year...I was doing evaluations in the lab by halfway through the first semester. Ethics of it aside, it actually is a legal issue...we're required to carry malpractice insurance (even as first years). Would mom or dad need to cosign her insurance? Would a malpractice carrier even agree to that? Its not like when your 16 year old learns to drive...this isn't exactly news.

That is all legal nuances that I'm sure could be worked out though she might have to pay an obscene fee for the first year of malpractice insurance.

Ethically, that is separate. As usual, the news article doesn't really provide enough information for anyone who actually knows anything about grad school in psych to judge. UIUC is a very competitive program...if she didn't have good research experience her age is likely only a minor factor. The article says she "lacks experience" and I think they meant life experience and not professional experience, but again, hard to say. The fact that she did her undergrad there would also be counted against her at many schools. Basically, we don't know why she didn't get in.

Overall though, I think the most telling is the fact that it sounds like her parents got involved in discussions with the school after she was denied admission. If she was fighting this on her own I'd be far more supportive, but the fact that her parents are still intervening in her battles for her speaks volumes. Even if we assume she is in the right, this was outright discrimination and completely unjust, the involvement of the parents makes it pretty cut and dry that she's not ready for grad school in clinical psych.

 

[PsychPhDone]

It looks like she also went there for undergrad, which at many programs would be another knock against you.

Yes, she has the academic incest problem. She also applied straight out of undergrad. To one program. UIUC is a great program, and if she wanted a shot in hell, she'd need to have a good mentor fit and probably some full time research experience.

It's embarrassing that her parents got involved. Is Mommy going to come in and yell at her chronically tardy client?

 

[FadedC]

She seems surprisingly shocked that she applied to a clinical psychology program and got rejected. She seems to think that having straight As should have given her automatic acceptance. These things alone make me question her maturity and whether she knows much about the field to which she is applying.

It seems kind of unlikely that if she was rushing to finish school at age 17 that she would develop the research background and "fit" that clinical programs look for. It's not impossible of course, but her empahsis on her grades rather then anything that's actually important makes this seem even more unlikely.

But it is an interesting question on whether or not someone who did have excellent qualifications should be rejected from clinical training due to their age. What if they were like 15 or 14 instead of 17? It would certainly be a surreal experience for whoever got them as their therapist in the college clinic!

 

[erg923]

I noticed that alot of the comments on the original article page stress things like "Well, if she can pass the tests, understand the material, write the papers, etc., then whats the problem? Obviously, a gross misunderstanding of the applied nature of this profession.

I think most of us here would agree that applied programs have a responsibility to look for other factors that can contribute to or hinder a student's ability work with patients and train as a mental health professional. In my mind, this gives programs such as clinical psych doctoral programs and medical school ALOT of leeway in its disqualifying criteria. I mean, a couple years ago our program eliminated someone with a bang up vita and lots of potential because of the way they dressed at the interview. Flamboyant and inappropriate, to say the least. Should we be afraid that we are gonna get sued because we are "fashion biased" now. Come on...

I would have to say that lacking the requiste experience (research, clinical, etc.) secondary to her young age, is the obvious disqualifier here. Not the age itself.

 

[aagman01]

So the only issue would be emotional maturity, but seeing how some of my profs have not reached that stage, she would fit right in.

 

[IHrtHealthPsych]

I'd say justice was served. She has at least 7 more years until her brain is fully developed, and a whole life ahead of her. Maybe she could work well with small children? Otherwise, totally and completely inappropriate for a 17 (or 18, 19, or even 20) year-old to be in any clinical role.

 

[Ollie123]

I noticed that alot of the comments on the original article page stress things like "Well, if she can pass the tests, understand the material, write the papers, etc., then whats the problem? Obviously, a gross misunderstanding of the applied nature of this profession.

Just glanced through the comments and this is spot on, not surprisingly, most of the people replying seem to have absolutely no idea what grad school involves. "Maybe she will just do research when she graduates, they don't know if she's ever going to do clinical work!". Sheer idiocy...

 

[futureapppsy2]

Just glanced through the comments and this is spot on, not surprisingly, most of the people replying seem to have absolutely no idea what grad school involves. "Maybe she will just do research when she graduates, they don't know if she's ever going to do clinical work!". Sheer idiocy...

And you mean straight A's in their last semester isn't an outstanding and unusual achievement in clinical PhD applicants?

I did see a comment from someone claiming to have been her TA who mentioned she was "about to publish" an honors thesis, but I'm dubious of the veriacity of that because of the wording--what does "about to publish" even mean?

 

[PsychPhDone]

I've been "about to publish" some stuff I've been working on for two years now. Funny how that happens.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Given her involvement with the legislature at an early age and her accomplishments, I'm willing to bet she is being backed by hyper-vigilant parents who want to bull her through to whatever they think is best for her. It doesn't sound like she has much insight into her own weaknesses, one of which is a lack of experience in life as well as in what is needed to be a strong candidate for a clinical psychology program. She probably heard what she wanted to hear from the Admissions Director and the program. They probably said, "you need more experience", and she equated that to an age issue. Hopefully she can take some time away from academia and gain some insight into herself and the process.

 

[thewesternsky]

Although I'm sure it's possible, I can't imagine being mature enough at 17 to do well in a clinical program. I had a few interviews when I was 22 (with a master's degree in another field), and I think even then I lacked the maturity and self-awareness to deal effectively with clients! I was told by one of the profs I interviewed with to take an extra year, gain some additional life experience, and try again. I took that to heart and my next round of applications was very successful.

That's not to say it isn't possible, but I don't see anything wrong or "ageist" with urging students to gain more professional and life experience before beginning graduate school. Also, if she had done her homework, she likely would have applied to more than one school--and not the school where she completed her undergraduate degree.

 

[cara susanna]

She also only applied to one program. Given that she ended up attending a school in Illinois, I would say that she appears to have been restricting herself geographically. That's a death warrant for many of even the most qualified applicants. Not to mention the academic incest factor, which none of the comments seem to acknowledge.

I do see why they mentioned age as a reason for not admitting her as well. I can't imagine someone seeing a 19-year-old clinician. I get flack for my age and I'm 24 (though I look like I'm 18. ) I also agree that she handled it poorly by bringing her mother into the situation and writing an article that may blacklist her from the profession if the right people read it.

The comments do reflect a lack of knowledge towards clinical psych grad school. A lot of people keep mentioning life experience as essential for psych grads... Well, most psych graduate students ARE in their early 20s, so I don't really agree with that.

Edit: From the online petition: Less qualified students, with lower GPA and GRE scores than myself, were admitted to the program because, as one committee member informed me, "age matters when applying to graduate school", and suggested that I should go "backpacking through Europe for a year" before re-applying to the program. The director of admissions also informed me that she agrees with the statement that "age does matter" while applying to a PhD program at UIUC.

Um, lower GRE scores/GPA does not necessarily equal "less qualified," at least not in this field. I'm beginning to think that this girl was one of those applicants who was like "Well, I don't know what to do now, clinical psych sounds interesting so I'll try that."

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I couldn't resist commenting. The lack of understanding of the application process is a huge variable missing from most of the comments. I'm sure my pending comment will be greeted with shouts of, "She has worked hard and deserves to be admitted."

 

[cara susanna]

The only issue is that one professor did say her age was the big factor.

 

[roubs]

The comments do reflect a lack of knowledge towards clinical psych grad school. A lot of people keep mentioning life experience as essential for psych grads... Well, most psych graduate students ARE in their early 20s, so I don't really agree with that.

Life experience is so fuzzy, but I'd say you can get quite a bit of it by age 22-23 if you aren't hyperfocused on crafting the perfect resume. I'd count working a crappy minimum wage job ages 16-18 as "life experience".

 

[futureapppsy2]

The only issue is that one professor did say her age was the big factor.

That is problematic, but it's possible they said something about experience that she interpreted as meaning "age." It's also possible that they mentioned the legal/ethical issues with clinical work, and IIRC, the age discrimination laws provide exemption for such things.

I think it was a huge mistake for her to write this article--if she was going too= write it at all (which, IMO, she shouldn't have--the psych world is WAY too small and with Google...), she would have down better to focus on her non-GPA, non-GRE qualifications--even if it was written for laypeople, publishing articles and presenting at conferences still sounds pretty impressive to people outside this field. As it's written now, it appears that she doesn't have any second order qualifications, that she doesn't understand the admissions process, and that she's liable to create a public petition against you if you do something she doesn't like, all of which will look really bad if/when she reapplies.

If she was really discriminated against (I don't know either way), that does really suck, but unfortunately, the way things work, esp. in academia, encourage even taking legitimate discrimination and quietly dealing with it--you don't want to be seen as potential liability, even if you have a legit claim. If nothing else, she should have handled this through quiet, private channels, IMO.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, I think this makes her look litigious. With the constant rejection going on throughout graduate training (practicum applications, internship applications, publications, etc) it would send a red flag to me if I were a DCT.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

I'd say justice was served. She has at least 7 more years until her brain is fully developed, and a whole life ahead of her. Maybe she could work well with small children? Otherwise, totally and completely inappropriate for a 17 (or 18, 19, or even 20) year-old to be in any clinical role.

Babies have more neurons than adults. Now what?

 

[cara susanna]

I kind of want to post the link to this thread in the comments. The ignorance regarding psych grad school and the admissions process for it is astounding.

 

[roubs]

I kind of want to post the link to this thread in the comments. The ignorance regarding psych grad school and the admissions process for it is astounding.

What if her lawyers find us?

 

[syzergy]

What if her lawyers find us?

or worse, her mom?

 

[PsychPhDone]

or worse, her mom?

 

[cara susanna]

I'm willing to bet money that one of the posters in the news article comments is her mother.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I kind of want to post the link to this thread in the comments. The ignorance regarding psych grad school and the admissions process for it is astounding.

I like how one person said she should have been admitted because she could, hypothetically (as anyone could), die young.... That's *really* reaching, IMO; for one, she could die young (or not) regardless of whether she was admitted to grad school at 17 or 19 or 25.

 

[Ollie123]

I like how one person said she should have been admitted because she could, hypothetically (as anyone could), die young.... That's *really* reaching, IMO; for one, she could die young (or not) regardless of whether she was admitted to grad school at 17 or 19 or 25.

Haha, I saw that one too. Maybe she will die before the start of fall semester! We should rearrange the entire academic system so people can start going to classes the second they receive that acceptance letter...don't let the "man" keeping you down!

That poster in particular stood out to me as one of the best examples I've ever seen of someone who knows so very little, yet doesn't let it stop her from being so very vocal. Ahhh the internet.

 

[PsychPhDone]

I like how one person said she should have been admitted because she could, hypothetically (as anyone could), die young.... That's *really* reaching, IMO; for one, she could die young (or not) regardless of whether she was admitted to grad school at 17 or 19 or 25.

I mean, comps can feel life-threatening? Maybe the poster knows more than we realize?

 

[cara susanna]

The general comments also don't seem to understand that you get your Masters on the way to your PhD. They're like "It's not like she wants to be a doctor! What harm is there in giving her a Masters at 19?"

Sigh.

 

[deleted176373]

Less qualified students, with lower GPA and GRE scores than myself, were admitted to the program because, as one committee member informed me, “age matters when applying to graduate school”, and suggested that I should go "backpacking through Europe for a year" before re-applying to the program. The director of admissions also informed me that she agrees with the statement that "age does matter" while applying to a PhD program at UIUC.

Um, lower GRE scores/GPA does not necessarily equal "less qualified," at least not in this field. I'm beginning to think that this girl was one of those applicants who was like "Well, I don't know what to do now, clinical psych sounds interesting so I'll try that."

I got beat out at a number of schools by "less qualified" candidates. Truth is, I don't know if they were or were not less qualified. I can state with certainty that some schools where I was unsuccessful did admit students with lower GPA and GRE scores than mine.

Was it my age, and yes, age does matter to some. I don't know... I was accepted to grad school when I hit 40! The graduate program I am going to graduate from wouldn't accept me today based on my age at that time (they now have an official cut off of 35.)

The young lady should take it as a blessing in disguise and the opportunity to get a better match later... additionally, she probably would benefit from some additional life experience before attempting to become a psychologist. I was fortunate that I didn't get accepted my first time through, I ended up in a far better place for it... does it work out that way for everyone, certainly not... but at 17 she's not exactly fighting the clock. Is it age discrimination, certainly possible, but more than likely it is discrimination based on development outside of her academic achievements that is holding her back. If her side of the story is to be believed, it would sound like the worst that happened is that they did a poor job of explaining it to her.

Admission to graduate education is not a right, and the sooner she understands that, the better off she will be. I applied to 15 programs with a solid GRE (1300) and a 4.0 GPA, probably feeling like she did. I thought, "I should have it locked up". Well guess what... it didn't work that way. Did my age work against me, was I too old for graduate training... I am sure many thought I was. Go back and start again, figure out what you need to make it and do it... if it means backpacking for a year, would that be too much to ask? In the end, many of us have had to dust ourselves off and apply again (whether it be grad school, internships, or even trying to get that first job.)

 

[sunlioness]

It's the entitlement that gets to me. Who decides to apply to only one school (and a top school at that) in one of the most competitive fields there is and then decides to start an internet crusade when they don't get in?

On the off chance it was only an issue of age, then I would count that as a good thing. One of the top schools in the country in this field just told you that they would accept you if you were a bit older. Well, guess what! You will be a bit older in the course of time. Go get some additional experience, re-apply and chances are they'll still like you and will moreover appreciate the graceful way you handled the disappointment and your commitment the field by continuing to pursue it in the face of a setback. This is just going to make it unlikely that any school is going to want her. And in such a competitive field, there are plenty of reasons not to admit any applicant.

Just strikes me as so not smart. Oh well.

 

[erg923]

It's the entitlement that gets to me. Who decides to apply to only one school (and a top school at that) in one of the most competitive fields there is and then decides to start an internet crusade when they don't get in?

On the off chance it was only an issue of age, then I would count that as a good thing. One of the top schools in the country in this field just told you that they would accept you if you were a bit older. Well, guess what! You will be a bit older in the course of time. Go get some additional experience, re-apply and chances are they'll still like you and will moreover appreciate the graceful way you handled the disappointment and your commitment the field by continuing to pursue it in the face of a setback. This is just going to make it unlikely that any school is going to want her. And in such a competitive field, there are plenty of reasons not to admit any applicant.

Just strikes me as so not smart. Oh well.

Blessing in disguise is right

"It's always the good men who do the most harm in the world."
-Henry Adams

 

[wigflip]

The graduate program I am going to graduate from wouldn't accept me today based on my age at that time (they now have an official cut off of 35.)

I know that age discrimination (too old) happens in the application process--my mentors drilled it into my head--but is having an official cutoff even legal??

 

[Ollie123]

I believe he's in a military program. They are the only ones who can get away with such things

 

[futureapppsy2]

I would probably be more generous to the girl, honestly, if there was an indication she was actually competitive (beyond GPA and GRE scores, which we all know won't get you in by themselves) for a program, especially one like UIUC. If her article had said that she had, I don't know, three years of research experience, five poster presentations at conferences, two publications in peer-reviewed journals, and two years of volunteering at a domestic violence shelter or something, I would be more inclined to side with her. Of course, that's still certainly not a "lock" and there would still be concerned with her age and clinical work, but as it's presented now, I have yet to read anything suggesting she was actually otherwise qualified to get in. Honestly, I think she may be so used to being a prodigy that she didn't really consider getting rejected on fair grounds to be a possibility for her.

She's obviously very smart and has potential, but that doesn't mean she was qualified to apply last year. If she were, why didn't she just say so? I know it sounds sort of mean, but I can't help thinking that her app had bigger issues than age.

 

[DrGachet]

This is crazy that we're talking about this, as if we know what makes a good all around psychologist! If I am 15 and know, say, how to do complex stats, then I am more qualified than a 40 year old with all experiences in the world. Why? Because psychologists, in this day and age, are trained to do research, and I know that stats is a big part of it. What makes someone a great clinician is much less clear of course. But gone are the Freudian days of charismatic and worldly psychologist who seen it all and done it all. These days, it's all about research. If she has top grades, GRE, is very good in stats, why not let her in? They could always kick her out later, can't they? Could she become a professor at a young age? heck, why not? It happens in hard sciences. Could she get emotionally overwhelmed by some "grownup" problems? It's quite possible, seeing how older students experience that to some extent. Worse comes to worse, she could switch to cognitive psych or something, later on, to stay clear of that stuff. But definitely, give her a chance.

 

[roubs]

This is crazy that we're talking about this, as if we know what makes a good all around psychologist! If I am 15 and know, say, how to do complex stats, then I am more qualified than a 40 year old with all experiences in the world. Why? Because psychologists, in this day and age, are trained to do research, and I know that stats is a big part of it. What makes someone a great clinician is much less clear of course. But gone are the Freudian days of charismatic and worldly psychologist who seen it all and done it all. These days, it's all about research. If she has top grades, GRE, is very good in stats, why not let her in? They could always kick her out later, can't they? Could she become a professor at a young age? heck, why not? It happens in hard sciences. Could she get emotionally overwhelmed by some "grownup" problems? It's quite possible, seeing how older students experience that to some extent. Worse comes to worse, she could switch to cognitive psych or something, later on, to stay clear of that stuff. But definitely, give her a chance.

But even there, the best way to learn how to do good research is to do research... and mess up (a lot). Stats are a step along the way. At 15 or 17 how much research can one have done?

 

[erg923]

This is crazy that we're talking about this, as if we know what makes a good all around psychologist! If I am 15 and know, say, how to do complex stats, then I am more qualified than a 40 year old with all experiences in the world. Why? Because psychologists, in this day and age, are trained to do research, and I know that stats is a big part of it. What makes someone a great clinician is much less clear of course. But gone are the Freudian days of charismatic and worldly psychologist who seen it all and done it all. These days, it's all about research. If she has top grades, GRE, is very good in stats, why not let her in? They could always kick her out later, can't they? Could she become a professor at a young age? heck, why not? It happens in hard sciences. Could she get emotionally overwhelmed by some "grownup" problems? It's quite possible, seeing how older students experience that to some extent. Worse comes to worse, she could switch to cognitive psych or something, later on, to stay clear of that stuff. But definitely, give her a chance.

1. She applied to a CLINICAL psych program...not an experimental psych program.

2. Attrition reflects poorly on a programs rep

3. Attrition costs money (e.g., they funded and invested in your training and would get nothing from it).

4. This would not be fair to patients.

5. Why would they want to waste their time if they could forsee that this might be something that they would need to do?! The whole reason why psych ph.d. programs are so competitive is so they DONT have to do, or worry, about this kind of thing!

 

[Psychology 76]

I would probably be more generous to the girl, honestly, if there was an indication she was actually competitive (beyond GPA and GRE scores, which we all know won't get you in by themselves) for a program, especially one like UIUC. If her article had said that she had, I don't know, three years of research experience, five poster presentations at conferences, two publications in peer-reviewed journals, and two years of volunteering at a domestic violence shelter or something, I would be more inclined to side with her. Of course, that's still certainly not a "lock" and there would still be concerned with her age and clinical work, but as it's presented now, I have yet to read anything suggesting she was actually otherwise qualified to get in. Honestly, I think she may be so used to being a prodigy that she didn't really consider getting rejected on fair grounds to be a possibility for her.

She's obviously very smart and has potential, but that doesn't mean she was qualified to apply last year. If she were, why didn't she just say so? I know it sounds sort of mean, but I can't help thinking that her app had bigger issues than age.

Exactly. The thing is, even if she DID have amazing stats, it is by no means a gimme to get into such a competitive programs. Tons of great applicants don't get accepted. The fact that she didn't mention any other credentials besides grades and a useless ACT score only makes the story more annoying. I got the impression that she just felt entitled to get into the program because she was used to being a prodigy.

With that attitude, I'm glad she didn't take a more deserving (and more gracious) student's spot.

 

[DrGachet]

1. She applied to a CLINICAL psych program...not an experimental psych program.

2. Attrition reflects poorly on a programs rep

3. Attrition costs money (e.g., they funded and invested in your training and would get nothing from it).

4. This would not be fair to patients.

5. Why would they want to waste their time if they could forsee that this might be something that they would need to do?! The whole reason why psych ph.d. programs are so competitive is so they DONT have to do, or worry, about this kind of thing!

1. But like I said, many of the clinical programs these days are very research oriented. The clinical stuff is usually more an afterthought. The focus is research. Of course, research ON clinical issues, and research with clinical application.

2/3. True. But is there any research that links attrition with age?

4. Lots of things would not be fair to patients, and unless you live in fantasy, you are well aware of the various ways we all fall short of the ideal therapist, even those who finally graduated. It's almost as if you believe that once she is admitted, she can do whatever she wants during her therapy hour with patients and that there is no supervision or monitoring of her progress.

5. Of course they certainly do not have to admit her if they believe it is quite unlikely that she would complete the program. Maybe it's her personality or her emotional maturity, or something, I don't know, that rubbed them the wrong way. I am simply saying that if the only reason is that she is young, then they have no case.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

School: Leans much more to the research side, well known, and has a history of producing solid researchers who do some private practice work on the side.

Professor Z: Well published, experienced, and expects high productivity. Studies early onset psychosis.

Person A: 4.0, 1500 GRE, 1yr research, 1 publication in low-impact journal, wants to study med compliance for people dx'd w.bipolar w. psychotic features.

Person B: 3.70, 1400 GRE, 3yr research, published thesis, and had 2 posters at national conferences. Studying adult w. schizophrenia + substance abuse.

Person C: 3.55, 1290 GRE, 2yr research, 2 publications (2nd and 3rd author, 1 mid-tier journal, 1 high impact journal), and 2 presentations. Studying early intervention (therapy + meds) following a psychotic break.

Who does the professor choose?

Person A has superior stats, mediocre research, and isn't a great match.

Person B has very good stats, great research, and a slightly better match, but still a reach.

Person C has the "worst" stats, great research, and a much better match.

I'd guess Person C gets the offer at least 90% of the time above Person A or Person B. They know what it takes to get into a higher tier journal, and their match is closer. It really isn't that close. I'd guess this girl was much closer to Person A than Person B or Person C. Person B still lands at a solid place. Person A gets in with a good match and some help.

 

[psich]

Well, I think that this girl learned a very important fact of life:
You don't get everything you want, when you want it.

I would think that some parents would encourage her to come to terms with the adcoms decision, take it as a lesson, and encourage her to move on with life. But, alas...

 

[deleted176373]

I know that age discrimination (too old) happens in the application process--my mentors drilled it into my head--but is having an official cutoff even legal??

Not for mere mortals... but for the federal family... all sorts of ism's are still in effect. Women are still prohibited from serving in a number of positions (given the culture, I suspect you won't find women wearing the SEAL trident or SWCC badge anytime soon).

The Marines will not let women serve in OSCAR billets (which are classified as combatant positions), much to the chagrin of my female peers who desire such placements and, I might add, may be well suited to the work. Hopefully this will continue to change as women currently hold influential positions in many "special" assignments and, not surprisingly, do an excellent job in these assignments.

I have a friend who was recently told no by the USAF because she is too old. Age cutoff 35, her age, 40. Too bad... So sad. Totally unfair... no consideration of her fitness, her abilities, or what she brings to the table in experience. She doesn't meet the standard.

I believe he's in a military program. They are the only ones who can get away with such things

Yes, the military still allows discrimination. For example, "don't ask, don't tell" is still in effect as of the date of this posting. If a service member discloses, they risk discharge. Fat people have historically have been marginalized in the military, yet, the military will terminate the services of members that do not meet the standard. You can be discharged for not meeting the body fat standards despite being capable of physically performing at the highest levels on the PT test.

Is that a good thing, or is it a bad thing?

Many service members would argue (and it would be challenging to dispute) that a military population that is fit and ready to perform is a desirable attribute in a service member for a wide variety of reasons... the most obvious of which is the caring for those who are healthy is generally far less expensive than those with risk factors associated with obesity.

I could go on and on about conditions that the military may disqualify service members for, but the reasons are considered a military necessity and are well above my pay grade. Obviously, the military still has quite a distance to go if one believes that women should be unrestricted in their choice of assignments. However, this is not entirely the choice of the military, some of these restrictions are mandated by law by Congress.

 

[DrGachet]

School: Leans much more to the research side, well known, and has a history of producing solid researchers who do some private practice work on the side.

Professor Z: Well published, experienced, and expects high productivity. Studies early onset psychosis.

Person A: 4.0, 1500 GRE, 1yr research, 1 publication in low-impact journal, wants to study med compliance for people dx'd w.bipolar w. psychotic features.

Person B: 3.70, 1400 GRE, 3yr research, published thesis, and had 2 posters at national conferences. Studying adult w. schizophrenia + substance abuse.

Person C: 3.55, 1290 GRE, 2yr research, 2 publications (2nd and 3rd author, 1 mid-tier journal, 1 high impact journal), and 2 presentations. Studying early intervention (therapy + meds) following a psychotic break.

Who does the professor choose?

Person A has superior stats, mediocre research, and isn't a great match.

Person B has very good stats, great research, and a slightly better match, but still a reach.

Person C has the "worst" stats, great research, and a much better match.

I'd guess Person C gets the offer at least 90% of the time above Person A or Person B. They know what it takes to get into a higher tier journal, and their match is closer. It really isn't that close. I'd guess this girl was much closer to Person A than Person B or Person C. Person B still lands at a solid place. Person A gets in with a good match and some help.

I get what you're saying. Not looking at theoretical potential based on superior academic record, but actual potential based on published research. So in your view, age is not a factor as long as once has publications/presentations.

If I may digress a bit, this reminds me of a certain neuropsychiatrist, a head of program at my university, who has like a hundred papers to his name and he knows jack about research. It's the psych students doing the "leg work" and the trusted statistician crunching up the number and other grad students writing the draft and he just fine-tunes it. He is always the first name on papers too. On the other hand, there was this really nice psychologist I once worked with, and unfortunately it did not work out, but she offered to have my name put on a paper even though what I did for the study was next to negligible. She is like that with all her students, generous with sharing the credit. So to come back to the topic at hand, having a paper published does not say as much about the person, as one would think.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I get what you're saying. Not looking at theoretical potential based on superior academic record, but actual potential based on published research. So in your view, age is not a factor as long as once has publications/presentations.

If I may digress a bit, this reminds me of a certain neuropsychiatrist, a head of program at my university, who has like a hundred papers to his name and he knows jack about research. It's the psych students doing the "leg work" and the trusted statistician crunching up the number and other grad students writing the draft and he just fine-tunes it. He is always the first name on papers too. On the other hand, there was this really nice psychologist I once worked with, and unfortunately it did not work out, but she offered to have my name put on a paper even though what I did for the study was next to negligible. She is like that with all her students, generous with sharing the credit. So to come back to the topic at hand, having a paper published does not say as much about the person, as one would think.

This can be very true, although I would make the argument that career phase plays a huge role here--securing two or three publications prior to graduate school often says a lot more about the person than securing two or three publications as a professor. The latter will often be of higher-caliber and will deal with more complicated factors, but as you've pointed out, can also (perhaps unfortunately) be the result of relatively little actual work on the professor's part once she/he has setup a finely-tuned laboratory. In the case of the former, however, the undergraduate will usually have to show a decent amount of initiative, and put in a fair amount of work, to convince supervisors to include him/her on the paper.

 

[erg923]

1. But like I said, many of the clinical programs these days are very research oriented. The clinical stuff is usually more an afterthought. The focus is research. Of course, research ON clinical issues, and research with clinical application.

I dont know if you're in grad school or not, but Im not sure how you think people do clinical research with clinical populations without actually seeing the patients. Maybe not for therapy and stuff, but people dont always do clinical research in a vaccum ya know.

Moreover, yes, yes, some grad school programs are more focused on reseearch, but the fact is its a CLINICAL program for a reason. We have experimental programs for people who only want research and research careeers. Programs know this. The fact is that even in Yale's clinical program, you will be seeing patients, and faculty take the responsibility of training mental health professsionals (not just reserachers) VERY seriously.

2/3. True. But is there any research that links attrition with age?

I dont know. You linked it, not me. You said "what's the big deal, they can just kick her out if there are problems." My repsonse was that it IS a big deal (pain in the ass both financially and admistratively) and that this would not be considered much of an option. If they thought this was a real possibility, then they wouldnt admit the person in the first place.

4. Lots of things would not be fair to patients, and unless you live in fantasy, you are well aware of the various ways we all fall short of the ideal therapist, even those who finally graduated. It's almost as if you believe that once she is admitted, she can do whatever she wants during her therapy hour with patients and that there is no supervision or monitoring of her progress.

I dont know why you would get that idea from my post. I simply meant that if you know from the get-go that the applicant has an issue that could possibly hinder her work with patients, then admitting her into the program is irresponsible.

5. Of course they certainly do not have to admit her if they believe it is quite unlikely that she would complete the program. Maybe it's her personality or her emotional maturity, or something, I don't know, that rubbed them the wrong way. I am simply saying that if the only reason is that she is young, then they have no case.

And I think many of us here are arguing, that no, it IS indeed her age. At least in the sense that someone who is 17 has simply NOT had the time to do all the things that give appropriate requisite experience for that kind of program. I think this is likley the bulk of matter.

However, I will say that admissions comittees "judge" all sorts of things about applicants that help to determine, in part, if they are a good fit for the program....and ultimately, whether they are admitted. To tell a program that they are not allowed to judge and then weigh "maturity" in their applicants is ludicrous. I mentioned that we disqualified someone from consideration a couple years ago because of their poor state of dress at the interview. We made judgements and inferences about the candidate based on this. Thus, he was tossed. Should we be sued for this?

 

[roubs]

Someone brought their mom to interview day--in the sense that she was following the applicant around. This impacted how the applicant was viewed and I don't think it would have mattered if the applicant was 17 or 27. Still, one could make the argument that this has little to do with the applicant's credentials.